Debates of the Senate

1st SESSION . 41st PARLIAMENT . VOLUME 148 . NUMBER 149

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CLAUDE NOLIN ACTING SPEAKER CONTENTS

(Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue).

Debates Services: D’Arcy McPherson, National Press Building, Room 906, Tel. 613-995-5756 Publications Centre: David Reeves, National Press Building, Room 926, Tel. 613-947-0609

Published by the Senate Available on the Internet: http://www.parl.gc.ca 3587

THE SENATE Tuesday, March 26, 2013

The Senate met at 2 p.m., the Honourable Pierre Claude Nolin, Quebec in 10 districts. For the past few years, it has also served as Acting Speaker, in the chair. the municipal police force in a number of cities in the province, including Drummondville, Saint-Hyacinthe, Shawinigan and Prayers. Roberval, to name a few.

Among those 23 police chiefs was Alexandre Chauveau, who VISITORS IN THE GALLERY headed the force for nine years. I should point out that Alexandre Chauveau was initially an independent Conservative member of The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to the Legislative Assembly of Quebec for the riding of Rimouski. draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of His He was named to the bench of the Court of the Sessions of the Excellency Enkhbold Zandaakhuu, Chairman of the State Peace in 1880 before becoming chief of police in 1882. Great Hural of Mongolia. The Quebec Provincial Police had always been headed up by a On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the judge. It was not until 1902 that a career police officer, like me, Senate of Canada. was allowed to head up the police force. That year, Augustin McCarthy was appointed, and he held the position for a record 30 Hon. Senators: Hear, hear! years.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, I also wish Under McCarthy, the Quebec Provincial Police incorporated to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the liquor enforcement police, put in place the traffic police and, participants in the Parliamentary Officers’ Study Program. in 1925, established the motorcycle patrols.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the One of the important changes that impacted the Sûreté du Senate of Canada. Québec in the mid-1960s was the creation of the Quebec provincial police association. Just a few years later, in February Hon. Senators: Hear, hear! 1968, 45 years ago, the police of this major organization signed the first collective agreement after their association was recognized by the then Premier, Daniel Johnson. This major change led to significant improvements in the working conditions of police. [Translation] Another major change occurred in June 1968, when the name of the Quebec Provincial Police was changed to the Sûreté du SENATORS’ STATEMENTS Québec, as we know it today. In 1975, the force hired its first female police officer. LA SÛRETÉ DU QUÉBEC [English]

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, I have been a Today, I want to salute the men and women of the Sûreté du member of this chamber for a year now, a year already. Québec, who day after day devote themselves to ensuring the security of the population, one of the most important issues for Today, I want to mark an historic event that rocked Quebec our government. I am so proud to have served in this police force. and Canada as a whole 50 years ago, and that is the arrest of child murderer Léopold Dion, which was in the news again this past [Translation] weekend. I especially want to talk to you about a great Canadian institution for which I worked for 39 years, namely the Sûreté du I will always be proud to say that I was a member of the Sûreté Québec. During that same period, half a century ago, that major du Québec. police force was undergoing a transformation, starting with a change in the colour of its uniforms and vehicles. [English] This police force was created on February 1, 1870, when it was called the QPP, the Quebec Provincial Police. At the time, it was TARTAN DAY managed by Judge Pierre-Antoine Doucet, who was given the title of commissioner, and the headquarters were set up at the Hon. Elizabeth Hubley: Honourable senators, I am pleased to headquarters of the Quebec City municipal police force, which rise today to recognize Tartan Day. This day, which is marked on was dissolved. April 6 across our country, is a special day for all Scots and for me as well. I am of Scottish decent and welcome the opportunity Since its creation, 23 police chiefs have headed up this large to celebrate this day and honour the many roles that Scots have police force, which today has 5,400 officers to serve the people of played in our country’s history, politics, medicine, justice, 3588 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2013 education, sports, science and business, to name a few. They have grown to include 90 member institutions throughout Canada and presented to the world a vibrant culture of language, music, dance India, all of which are premier universities of international repute. and cuisine. Today, 51 institutional members in India and 41 in Canada In 1992, I had the honour and privilege to stand in the form part of this network, and I hope this number continues to Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island and second the grow. No matter the academic field, this not-for-profit motion of the honourable member from 4th Kings, Mr. Stanley organization provides guidance by sharing ideas, distributing Bruce declaring April 6 as Tartan Day in our province. books and periodicals, fostering exchanges, stimulating discussions and promoting academic collaboration. . (1410) I know that as a government we are eager to expand relations The concept of Tartan Day began in Nova Scotia in 1986 and with our Indian partners, and education is a key area where we was officially proclaimed in the Nova Scotia legislature on must focus. Our Canadian institutions and economies have much April 6, 1987. Since then, every provincial assembly, including the to learn from this dynamic cultural and academic exchange. federal House of Commons, has proclaimed April 6 as Tartan Indian and Canadian students not only share their ideas but also Day. On March 9, 2011, the House of Commons declared the are major contributors to our local economies. Maple Leaf Tartan, designed by well-known Canadian David Weiser, the official tartan of Canada. Nelson Mandela said, ‘‘Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.’’ With honourable The name Tartan Day was chosen to promote Scottish heritage senators’ support, the institute will be able to continue its vision by the most visible means — the wearing of Scottish attire, of creating a compassionate, progressive, sustainable civil society especially in places where the kilt is not ordinarily worn. Scots in Canada and in India, — a society that is interconnected and wear their tartans with pride, as symbols of who they are. On empowered by mutual trust and respect. Tartan Day, celebrations are held across the country with pipe bands, Highland dancing and other Scottish-themed events. Please join Dr. Johnson and me in room 256-S at 5:30 this afternoon to learn more about this great institution. Let us Today, there are about 5 million people of Scottish decent in remember the words of Mahatma Gandhi: ‘‘Live as if you were to Canada, which makes up approximately 15 per cent of our total die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.’’ population. The Scottish have contributed to many facets of our society, thus it is very fitting that we take the time to honour and [Translation] celebrate them. I look forward to celebrating Tartan Day on Prince Edward Island with many fellow Scots, and I hope that others will also have an opportunity to join in Tartan Day LES JEUNES MANITOBAINS DES celebrations. COMMUNAUTÉS ASSOCIÉES

VISITORS IN THE GALLERY Hon. Maria Chaput: Honourable senators, on Friday, March 8, I had the privilege of speaking to about a hundred students from The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to French schools in the Franco-Manitoban School Division or draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of two FMSD, who were gathered at École Roméo-Dallaire in distinguished visitors who are the guests of the Honourable Winnipeg, Manitoba. They are members of a group called Senator Seth: Dr. Shanthi Johnson and Dr. Arun Seth. Jeunes Manitobains des communautés associées.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the These young Manitobans, who come from and represent 13 Senate of Canada. different high schools in the FMSD, were participating in an activity to build their francophone identity and their commitment Hon. Senators: Hear, hear! to their community. The group has a number of objectives, including promoting the SHASTRI INDO-CANADIAN INSTITUTE French language and culture and helping to make students aware of the Francophonie in Manitoba, in Canada and throughout the Hon. Asha Seth: Honourable senators, today I would like to world. speak about an organization that means a lot to me: the Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute. For over 40 years, the Shastri Institute Students are selected to participate based on a number of has served as a primary link between Canadian and Indian criteria, including a personal commitment to promoting the universities by promoting research, dialogue and exchange. diversity of cultural expression and the heritage of the many cultures, ethnic backgrounds and identities of Franco-Manitoban Dr. Shanthi Johnson, the institute’s new president, joins us youth. today in the gallery. We all know. Participants sign a letter of commitment in which they agree to The Shastri Institute’s dedication to excellence, innovation, volunteer for a minimum of six hours a month, and they have to knowledge and capacity-building has made this institute a very pay $100 to help cover the costs associated with the group’s valuable organization. From small beginnings, the institute has activities and projects. What a wonderful commitment.

[ Senator Hubley ] March 26, 2013 SENATE DEBATES 3589

I would like to congratulate the FMSD, particularly the attacks on an Algerian gas plant that took the lives of over 80 cultural services officer, Stéphane Tétreault, on this people. This tragedy and the alleged involvement of Canadians in extraordinary initiative. perpetrating it should remind us of the importance of understanding the roots of terrorism. This way we can create Through their efforts, committed students are helping to build proactive strategies to prevent our youth from choosing the path the francophone identity in our schools, thereby ensuring the of violence. cultural vitality of young Franco-Manitobans and the future of French in a province that is primarily anglophone. . (1420) INTERNATIONAL EPILEPSY DAY Today, I want to address three questions. First, what is Hon. Jacques Demers: Honourable senators, I rise today to radicalization? The Royal Canadian Mounted Police defines mark Purple Day or International Epilepsy Day. I am wearing radicalization as ‘‘the process by which individuals — usually purple in honour of the occasion. young people — move from moderate, mainstream belief towards extreme views.’’ Last fall, I had the privilege of presenting a Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal to the mother of a very special little girl named Elizabeth, who suffers from a rare and severe form of It is important to note that not all radicals are terrorists. Some epilepsy. Elizabeth has to take a number of medications every day of history’s most important figures — such as Martin Luther and has learning difficulties related to her illness. King, Jr. or Nelson Mandela — were considered radicals in their time. However, we should be concerned whenever people use Elizabeth will have to receive specialized care all her life. Her violence to achieve their goals. mother, Chantal, has devoted her life to her daughter, and for that she has my admiration. It is hard enough to care for a healthy child, but caring for a child with a serious illness is a full-time job. Second, who becomes radicalized into violence? Recently, the [English] Canadian Security Intelligence Service released a study of radicalization. The main conclusion was that there was no profile for individuals at risk. It is largely an idiosyncratic More than 300,000 Canadians are living with epilepsy as we process. One common misperception is that radicalization results speak, and we can offer no cure for this illness to this day. For from poverty, marginalization or the failure of immigrants to more than half of the people living with epilepsy, medication is integrate into Canadian culture. However, evidence shows that the only way to control their seizures, while only a small domestic extremists tend to be born and raised in Canada, have percentage of those suffering from this disease can surgically post-secondary education and come from a variety of socio- remove the part of their brain causing the seizures. When I met economic backgrounds. Elizabeth’s mother to award her the Diamond Jubilee medal, I made one promise to her. I would like to thank Senator Mercer for giving me the opportunity to be able to talk about this wonderful young lady, Elizabeth. Third, where does radicalization take place? There is no clear answer to this question. Parents may influence the radicalization of children, and wives may influence their husbands and vice I rise before honourable senators today to ensure that we do not versa. The Internet may also play a major role. Terrorist groups leave those 300,000 Canadians suffering from epilepsy in the dark. often will often use social media for propaganda and recruitment. [Translation] Another common location for radicalization is in prison. Studies show that prisoners are particularly vulnerable to being converted into extreme ideologies, but we must remember that radicalization We must provide more funding and resources for epilepsy is a social process that can happen wherever humans interact. research and awareness and, as senators, we should advocate for this cause. [English] Honourable senators, I ask you to join me in committing to do more to prevent the radicalization of our Canadian youth into I am a father of four children and eight grandchildren, and we violence. Although the recent attacks in Algeria are particularly are so fortunate to have children and grandchildren, in my case, troubling, terrorism is also a serious threat within our own who are healthy. When we have occasions like that — with disease borders. This was demonstrated by the criminal convictions of or children who are sick, — it is difficult to understand how hard members of the so-called Toronto 18. In that case, luckily, a it is for those people. Again, I wish to thank the Honourable tragedy was prevented by our police and intelligence services. Senator Mercer for doing as Senator Munson did with autism. However, we cannot rely solely on our public safety authorities to Taking care of the kids and thinking about them is very special. protect us. We must take a community-based approach to counter radicalization. This strategy should emphasize and identify youth at risk through social programs and fostering greater engagement RADICALIZATION of our communities in the democratic process.

Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: Honourable senators, I rise to address the issue of radicalization in Canadian society. The Honourable senators, we in the Senate need to be involved to gravity of this issue has recently been confirmed with the terrorist stop violence in our communities. 3590 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2013

[Translation] [English]

MIKAEL KINGSBURY ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

CONGRATULATIONS ON WINNING FREESTYLE CRIMINAL CODE SKIING WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS CRYSTAL GLOBE BILL TO AMEND—TWENTY-THIRD REPORT OF LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): COMMITTEE PRESENTED Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to commend the achievements of a young athlete from the region I represent, Hon. Bob Runciman, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee freestyle skier Mikael Kingsbury. on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

At the Freestyle World Ski Championships held in Voss, Tuesday, March 26, 2013 Norway, on March 6, Mikael earned the title of world champion in individual moguls. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its This athlete from Deux-Montagnes had already won six gold TWENTY-THIRD REPORT medals in seven events this season in the individual category of the Skiing World Cup. He finished first overall, becoming the World Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-55, An Act Cup champion for the second year in a row, and achieved his to amend the Criminal Code, has, in obedience to the order dream this year of being the overall world champion. This makes of reference of Thursday, March 21, 2013, examined the said Mikael the man to beat at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. Bill and now reports the same without amendment.

This 20-year-old’s perseverance, determination and discipline Respectfully submitted, are to be commended, for they are what allowed him to climb the ranks and rise to the top of international freestyle skiing. I have BOB RUNCIMAN been watching this talented young athlete from my region for Chair several years now, and I am impressed by the speed at which he has become a force to be reckoned with in his discipline. Mikael is The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall becoming an excellent role model for many young Canadians. this bill be read the third time?

Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): Last year, for the first time, Mikael won the prestigious Crystal Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and Globe, the top prize awarded each year to the World Cup moguls notwithstanding rule 5-5(b), I move that the bill be read the champion. I talked about that amazing achievement right here in third time later this day. this chamber and mentioned that his goal was to qualify for the 2014 Winter Olympic Games. He has definitely done so. Mikael is The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable now the world champion and the winner of two Crystal Globes. senators?

I had the huge pleasure of presenting him with the Queen Hon. Senators: Agreed. Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal during one of his visits to his hometown of Deux-Montagnes on January 3, 2013, in honour of (On motion of Senator Carignan, bill placed on the Orders of his many past and future achievements. the Day for third reading later this day.) [Translation] Mikael was able to translate his outstanding talents into success because he received unfailing support throughout his journey. I want to also acknowledge his parents, Robert and Julie, who have THE ESTIMATES, 2013-14 always guided him and encouraged his passion for freestyle skiing. Parental support plays an important role in helping young MAIN ESTIMATES—NINETEENTH REPORT people excel and achieve ambitious goals such as representing OF FINANCE COMMITTEE TABLED their country and winning at the Olympic Games. Hon. Joseph A. Day: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the nineteenth report of the Congratulations, Mikael. We support you and are proud of Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, on the 2013- you. 2014 Main Estimates.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: When shall this report be taken into consideration? March 26, 2013 SENATE DEBATES 3591

Senator Day: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and I had discussed this with the deputy chair of the committee, notwithstanding rule 5-5(b), I move that this bill be placed on the Senator Mitchell, and he agreed that it would be wise if we could Orders of the Day for consideration later this day. do that tonight. I would appreciate it if we could.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable Senator Tardif: I thank the honourable senator for the senators? explanation.

Hon. Senators: Agreed. The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? (On motion of Senator Day, notwithstanding rule 5-5(b), report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.) Hon. Senators: Agreed.

STUDY ON PRESCRIPTION PHARMACEUTICALS (Motion agreed to.)

TWENTIETH REPORT OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE TABLED

Hon. Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie: Honourable senators, I have the [Translation] honour to table, in both official languages, the twentieth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled: Prescription Pharmaceuticals in Canada: QUESTION PERIOD Post-Approval Monitoring of Safety and Effectiveness.

(On motion of Senator Ogilvie, report placed on the Orders of HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.) BUDGET 2013—SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAMS . (1430) Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, I have a [English] question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The government tabled its budget with the goal of getting Canadians to work by making changes to training requirements. ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Besides the RCMP training program, for which there is a college in Ottawa, can the Leader of the Government in the COMMITTEE AUTHORIZED TO MEET DURING SITTING OF THE SENATE Senate tell us what other training programs are constitutionally under federal jurisdiction? Hon. Richard Neufeld: Honourable senators, with leave of the [English] Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(a), I move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Environment and Natural Resources have the power to sit Honourable senators, I thank the senator for the question. As I at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, March 26, 2013, even though the explained yesterday, the Minister of Finance and the government Senate may be sitting; and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in have made the commitment to work with the provinces, territories relation thereto. and industry through the job grants program and other programs to connect skilled workers with available jobs. It is as simple as that. The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators? [Translation] [Translation] Senator Hervieux-Payette: The Leader of the Government in Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): What the Senate has not answered my question, but I will follow up is the rush, honourable senators? Is a minister appearing tonight? with a supplementary question so that we might come to an Why have the committee sit tonight, even though the Senate is agreement. sitting? Let us consider the money in the various budgets that has been [English] allocated for training and the workforce. This training is provided in high schools and colleges, including here in Ottawa at Senator Neufeld: Honourable senators, we have arranged a Algonquin College and in Montreal at the École de technologie meeting and have been experiencing difficulty getting a time to supérieure. These are very high-quality institutions that train meet with Transport Canada, not a minister, to discuss this workers who are highly sought after in the private sector. important issue as it relates to movement of hydrocarbons by pipeline, rail or marine. Right after that meeting, we are scheduled The government is requiring provincial participation, but it has to leave for Sarnia and Hamilton. not mentioned any additional funding or said whether existing 3592 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2013 budgets will be indexed. Instead, the government is cutting provinces are doing training? Instead of increasing the amount of budgets and asking the provinces and employers to contribute. money, the government is reducing it. The government speaks one language, but it does something different in terms of the budget. As far as I know, much of the cost of skills training programs is paid by employers. In Quebec, for example, the equivalent of 1% Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I will put it on the of payroll must be spent on training. record for the senator.

The government is calling for a much better match between When it comes to young Canadians especially — this is workers’ skills and labour market needs, yet it is cutting overall obviously an area where there is need — the Economic Action budgets and asking others to contribute. Still, the government Plan 2013, last Thursday’s budget, will support more internships wants us to believe that it is serious. and promote high-demand education. We are providing support for 5,000 paid internships for recent graduates, $70 million over How are we going to enable a father in Quebec, in the Gaspé for three years. We are renewing support for Pathways to Education, example, to go work out West, buy a $500,000 house and pay for which helps at-risk students. We are providing $18 million over his children, for his family, to change schools? How much money two years to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to provide has been set aside in the budget to help families move where the mentorship, advice and start-up financing for young jobs are? entrepreneurs. We will support the use of apprenticeships, and we are promoting education in high—demand fields like the [English] skilled trades, sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Senator LeBreton: We are not forcing families to do any such . (1440) thing, honourable senators. This builds on our support since 2006 with regard to youth. We The senator mentioned Algonquin College. I hasten to point made a permanent increase to the Canada Summer Jobs program, out that there was a major construction project at Algonquin 36,000 youth jobs per year. We are investing over $330 million per College paid for through the stimulus fund of the government and year through the Youth Employment Strategy to help youth get the provincial government and, as a result, there is a huge facility skills and work experience. The Youth Awareness program at Algonquin College now completely dedicated to the complements the government’s Youth Employment Strategy, and construction trades. It is a beautiful building on Woodroffe I mentioned yesterday a particular figure for Prince Edward Avenue. I would encourage honourable senators to go and have a Island under Skills Link. That is all with regard to youth look at it. That was all done in cooperation with the province and employment, and of course, through other programs announced the city with regard to stimulus. in the budget, we have not reduced expenditures in this area; we have increased them. With respect to the question the senator asked, there are, as we all know, too many jobs in Canada that are left unfilled. Employers cannot find workers with the right skills. Last fall, INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION there were nearly 250,000 unfilled jobs in Canada. The Certified General Accountants Association of Canada stated: CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY—FOREIGN AID In creating the Job Grant fund, the federal government has shown leadership in addressing the growing skills gap. We Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer: As honourable senators know, encourage provinces to support it. All should benefit — Minister Flaherty announced last Thursday that the Canadian employers, workers and governments International Development Agency will be integrated into the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. This The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has stated: decision represents an important opportunity to critically evaluate Canada’s policy on development. The measures announced in today’s budget are a significant step forward in the federal government’s attack In a December 2012 interview, Minister Fantino said that on Canada’s skills challenge. Canada’s investments through our international development agency should ‘‘promote Canadian values, Canadian business, the Honourable senators, as the Minister of Finance said and as I Canadian economy, benefits for Canada.’’ Professor Roland Paris reported here yesterday in answer to a similar question, obviously has said that ‘‘creating conditions for sustainable, market-driven there will be consultations with the provinces. Industry is very growth in developing societies seems to be the single best remedy excited by this program, and it is hoped that the provinces where for poverty.’’ those industries are located will see the opportunity and participate fully in the program. However, aid partnerships with the private sector should be about helping people in countries in desperate need, not about Senator Hervieux-Payette: Honourable senators, the leader did increasing Canadian profits. Neither Canada’s international not answer the part of my question where I stated that since 2007, credibility nor the billions of people living in poverty are well the actual budget for training is 10 per cent less. How much more served if Canada’s development policy is geared first toward money has the government put into the budget to ensure that the advancing Canadian commercial interests.

[ Senator Hervieux-Payette ] March 26, 2013 SENATE DEBATES 3593

My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate is trade and diplomacy. As was pointed out, we are also working to this: Will our development spending prioritize the reduction of develop many of the countries we are aiding so that they are in a poverty or the promotion of Canadian commercial interests? better position to move forward. This move will simply better coordinate within the Department of Foreign Affairs the very Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): significant efforts Canada is making on the humanitarian aid Honourable senators, we have made Canada’s aid more front. effective and will continue to do so. We are enshrining in law the important roles and responsibilities of the minister for Senator Jaffer: Honourable senators, I have another question international development and humanitarian assistance. This for the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is the change will enhance coordination of international assistance with Government of Canada still committed to the eradication of broader Canadian values and objectives and will put development poverty, or will commercial interests come first? on an equal footing with trade and diplomacy. Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, as I pointed out, the As was pointed out by several officials I saw over the weekend, government has a very balanced approach. We absolutely have a much of the Canadian aid is now going into countries where stellar record — and I put some of it on the record — of Canada is also putting in significant development dollars. supporting those countries toward eradicating poverty. Our Canada’s international assistance budget will be maintained. maternity and child health programs have been second to none. The new department of foreign affairs, trade and development We have expended a great deal of effort and money in the will maintain the mandate of poverty alleviation and eradication of polio. Our work dealing with the AIDS epidemic is humanitarian support. The Honourable Lloyd Axworthy was also an effort that the government will continue to promote and quoted in The Globe and Mail a couple of days ago saying, ‘‘I support, including the eradication of poverty. compliment the government on taking this step.’’ HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT Honourable senators, going forward, things will happen within Canada’s countries of focus. In the past, we have given over 2 million people access to education, vaccinated more than PARENTAL LEAVE—HEALTH BENEFITS 9 million against polio and fed over 18 million people. We have untied 100 per cent of food aid, and our food security strategy is Hon. Jim Munson: Honourable senators, my question is for the getting results. For example, in Ethiopia, we have helped about Leader of the Government in the Senate. 7.8 million people with food and assistance, and we have also invested significantly in the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, In December the Senate passed Bill C-44, commonly known as Tuberculosis and Malaria. the Helping Families in Need Act. This act, among other things, enables individuals receiving Employment Insurance and parental Senator Jaffer: Professor Paris pointed out in his commentary benefits to access sickness benefits if they fall ill. Previously, to that development assistance requires long-term commitments to access these sickness benefits claimants had to be ‘‘otherwise projects and countries. Many Canadian governments, including available for work.’’ the current government, have reinvented Canada’s long-term development priorities every few years. This is an urgent political That bill was put introduced in favour of a ruling regarding problem. Natalya Rougas a Toronto mother who was diagnosed with breast cancer while on maternity leave in 2010. At that time, an EI For example, in 2009, the government announced it would umpire, a Federal Court judge who reviews decisions made by the concentrate spending on 20 countries of focus. Five of the six Employment Insurance Board of Referees, ruled that the countries whose bilateral budgets have been reduced by the government was misinterpreting the spirit of the law and ought government are among those 20 countries named in 2009. to interpret the rules more liberally or amend the legislation. We had this debate here, and last year the government did the latter when it introduced Bill C-44. Security problems and accountability issues, according to media reports, make certain countries ‘‘less attractive for direct support.’’ Canada’s development policy should not be about While we were considering that legislation here in December, a identifying attractive countries or advancing flavor-of-the-month Stratford-area mother, Jane Kittmer, was also diagnosed with policy priorities. Development does not happen over the course of breast cancer during maternity leave. The argument was that her one or two election cycles; sometimes it takes decades. case was nearly identical before an EI umpire. After a two-and-a- half-year battle for sickness benefits, Jane finally received a ruling in her favour. However, yesterday we learned that the Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate address how Conservative government is fighting her claim. Why would the the government plans to ensure greater stability and consistency government treat two similar cases so differently? How is this fair in Canada’s aid policy? to Jane Kittmer and her family?

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I think the record Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): speaks for itself. The government absolutely has taken a more Honourable senators, this case is before the courts, as the focused approach to aid — with great results. Again, I emphasize honourable senator stated. The matter deals with legislation of with regard to CIDA that this change will enhance coordination the former government, which we have since changed, and of international assistance with broader Canadian values and obviously we are exploring ways of resolving this. As the objectives and will put development on an equal footing with honourable senator mentioned, we passed the Helping Families 3594 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2013 in Need Act to provide parents who fall ill while on parental leave are concerned, last week’s budget focuses on applied and with access to EI sickness benefits; and as I just mentioned, the commercial research. This is a disturbing trend. Everyone government is exploring ways to resolve this. However, the agrees that it is essential that we invest in research and science, situation she finds herself in is actually under legislation that was but applied research must not overshadow basic research. not passed by this government but by the previous government. Without basic research, there would be no applied research that is driven by commercial needs and interests. Basic research is the Senator Munson: That hardly makes it fair. first step in building commercial products. There are countless examples. The government has a responsibility to strike a balance . (1450) and invest in all levels of the innovation cycle. Why is the government abandoning basic research? She said, ‘‘I was shocked. I didn’t understand why the government was doing this. I was hurt.’’ [English] The mother of two has beaten her cancer, but the effects of chemotherapy leave her unable to return to work. There seems to Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): We are be a double standard here. doing no such thing, honourable senators. I actually wonder whether all senators on the other side read the budget. The bill came into force on Sunday. There is no reason I can see why the government would be appealing the ruling. I cannot Our government is strongly committed to supporting science, understand. Why would the government appeal this ruling? It is technology and innovation in Canada. Since 2006, we have almost in the same time frame and it is remarkably similar to that provided billions in new funding for initiatives to support science, of Ms. Rougas, which prompted the introduction of this bill. technology and the growth of innovative firms.

According to yesterday’s Toronto Star report about this story, New measures in Economic Action Plan 2013, the budget of last when asked about the matter, Human Resources Minister Diane Thursday, build on this strong foundation. It will help create jobs, Finley’s office said only that the government is helping families building on the new approach to promoting business innovation ‘‘balance work and family responsibilities’’ and ‘‘offering new launched in last year’s budget. Budget 2013 also proposes support measures to Canadian families at times when they need it measures to strengthen Canada’s advanced research capacity, most.’’ including $37 million annually to support research partnerships with industry through the federal research granting councils; Why can the government not offer an explanation as to why $225 million to the Canada Foundation for Innovation for Jane Kittmer is being subjected to different standards than have advanced research infrastructure; and $13 million for the Mitacs been applied to others, and what does it say to other Canadians Globalink program to attract top students to Canada. Obviously, facing similar circumstances? by the third-party endorsements from many in the scientific community, these measures have been very well received. Senator LeBreton: I actually did explain, honourable senators. This particular matter deals with legislation of the former government that we have since changed. She has fallen under Senator Tardif: Honourable senators, the Canadian Association the former legislation. of University Teachers has charted the flow of federal research dollars through the granting councils. It finds that after factoring for inflation, base-level funding for research has actually I have also explained that we passed the Helping Families in decreased by 7.5 per cent since 2007. While the funding pool is Need Act to provide parents who fall ill while on parental leave diminished, a larger share of it is targeted funding that may be with access to EI sickness benefits. That is part of the new act. linked to a particular commercial sector or political goal. This worrisome trend is weakening the country’s scientific capability in I also said we are exploring ways to resolve this particular case. the long term. For all the emphasis put on skills and training, the government seems to have forgotten that basic research is the Senator Munson: Honourable senators, the leader’s government training ground for a scientifically skilled workforce. had a choice. They could decide not to appeal. Why would the government do this to this poor woman? Will the government commit to provide adequate support for Senator LeBreton: I will just repeat what I said, honourable basic scientific research? senators, and what the minister in the other place said. This actually fell under old legislation. We brought in new legislation. Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I just read into the We are working now to try to resolve this particular case. record the significant amount of money that the government has committed to, so it is actually not true that the government does [Translation] not fully support research in science and technology.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, the question here is one of balance. One can argue about RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT whether there has been, in fact, a lessening of funding overall for research, but the fact of the matter is, to use the leader’s phrase, Hon. Claudette Tardif (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): there is distortion here between applied research, directed Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the research and pure research. That is the issue that my colleague Government in the Senate. As far as research and development Senator Tardif is trying to address.

[ Senator LeBreton ] March 26, 2013 SENATE DEBATES 3595

I would like the leader to respond to that portion, where there have been allocated to the various research institutions, has been a refocusing of whatever research dollars are being made universities and other innovative groups since that strategy was available by the government into and increasingly towards launched. directed research at the expense of pure research. What does the leader have to say about that? . (1500)

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, what I have to say Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I am quite interested in about that is that this government follows a completely different the response to Senator Munson’s questions because the Standing approach than the previous government. Our focus is on science, Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology technology and innovation. Our focus is on jobs, the economy spent a lot of time on this bill. A person could actually receive sick and the future prosperity of the country. Everything we do as a benefits and not be taken off of their maternity benefits. To hear government in terms of science and technology, whether we that the government is appealing this particular case that Senator commit research dollars for medical research or whether we put Munson raised is appalling. The leader is saying that it is because them into innovation funds, all of it is to advance this country. they happened to get pregnant and ill under other legislation, and That is including what we are doing in education to attract this legislation has changed. students from around the world, to not only educate them here but hopefully to encourage them to stay here. Everything we do, Could the government not find a bit of compassion to not since the beginning when we formed government, is to promote appeal this? Canada and to create more jobs, more innovation and a stronger business and resource sector. Senator LeBreton: Honourable Senator Tkachuk has it right. We are trying to resolve a situation for a person that falls under I understand that other governments had another way of doing legislation from the previous government. We have brought in things, but this is the way this government is doing it. new legislation. This matter is before the courts. As was pointed out in the other place, we are working to resolve this particular case. It is one of those incidents where the new legislation that we [Translation] passed has just come into effect, and the government is working to resolve this case. Hon. Maria Chaput: Honourable senators, what percentage of the government’s research funding is being invested in research Senator Cordy: If you were not appealing the decision, then the and university research centres across Canada? How does this case would be resolved. The government has chosen to appeal the compare to previous investments in Canadian university research decision. That is why it is not resolved. I am not sure why the centres? government is appealing it.

[English] Senator LeBreton: I am not a lawyer, thank goodness. As I just pointed out to the honourable senator, it is a matter before the courts. I am not certain how far I can discuss this, as it is before Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, in all the budgets, the courts. It is a case that fell within the jurisdiction of previous significant monies have been allocated to research in universities, legislation. We brought in new legislation, the Helping Families in and we would not have a person such as Lloyd Axworthy Need Act, to provide parents who fall ill while on parental leave complimenting the government if we were not. I remember a with access to EI sickness benefits. That is what our new bill does. couple of years ago, when we participated in some other funding What happened to this individual was under legislation from a for universities, that he was extremely fulsome in his praise, just as previous government, and, as I pointed out, the government is he is with this budget. I doubt very much Lloyd Axworthy would working to resolve this particularly unique case. be complimenting the government on the good work of this budget if we were not making significant contributions to science and technology and research. Senator Cordy: Honourable senators, the decision in this legislation came about because of a decision of the umpire. Unfortunately, the new EI legislation that the government Senator Tardif: Honourable senators, in 2007 the government brought in has done away with umpires. In the past, people released a national science and technology strategy, the goal of could actually appeal to a board, and if their decision was not which was to build up our science and technology assets and favourable they could appeal further. We have a first level appeal. expertise. What we have seen instead of a coherent national However, if that is gone, there is no more umpire. strategy is a piecemeal approach focused on commercialization. To move away from investing in basic research to put more However, it was because of a decision by the umpire that this resources into the end of the innovation cycle is very short- legislation was actually brought into being. The decision of the sighted. What happened to the strategy? Is it still a priority? umpire was that the original lady — and I have forgotten her name — should be entitled to EI benefits and sick benefits. The Senator LeBreton: The honourable senator seems to forget that legislation came to be, which is a positive thing. Certainly those of this government, I think it was in 2007, launched Canada’s science us on this side voted in favour of that legislation. and technology strategy. I would suggest honourable senators look back to the beginning of that program. I will take the However, here we have another case that is very similar, and question as notice, because I will look back. I believe it was either this government has shown no compassion by appealing what will in 2007 or 2008 when we launched this strategy, and I will be very be the law of the land and what has been deemed by an umpire to happy to provide the honourable senator with all the funds that be helpful to the individuals involved. 3596 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2013

Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, we have made many supply bill, Bill C-59, which we will be dealing with at third changes to the EI system to strengthen it and make it more reading in due course this afternoon. available to people who need assistance while, at the same time, connecting people with jobs that are available. It is logically important that honourable senators have an I can only say what I have said about five times now: The opportunity to know what is in and what is behind the schedules government is working to resolve this matter. that appear in that supply bill. This is an interim supply bill that, in most cases, takes the government from April 1 through to the [Translation] end of June. In some instances, as I pointed out yesterday, it provides for more interim funding because those particular departments need more money at the front end. However, if it ANSWERS TO ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS TABLED were a straight line, it would be three months of interim supply for every department. That gives us a chance to look at the Main FINANCE—EUROPEAN BANK FOR Estimates in more detail and then to report back to you in late RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT June as to what we found.

Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 37 on the Order Paper by This is our first look at this particular matter, so I want to refer Senator Downe. honourable senators to some of the items that appear in our report and highlight them. The entire report is there for you to take a look at. Have in mind that this is under the new format for VETERANS AFFAIRS—STAFFING the estimates. The estimates look the same from the outside but are quite different inside. Just when we started to get comfortable, Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government) after a few years, with the estimates as they have appeared, it was tabled the answer to Question No. 51 on the Order Paper by decided to change those estimates. Honourable senators will recall Senator Downe. that the estimates are divided into voted and statutory appropriations. The former is what is in Bill C-59. In the past, the estimates have been quite detailed, a different breakdown of the statutory items that had been approved in other pieces of legislation, but now all we have is one line, ‘‘statutory total amount.’’ If you want the details with respect to statutory ORDERS OF THE DAY appropriations, which normally we like to know because the government’s projected expenditures are made up of two parts, the statutory and the voted estimates, you go to Treasury Board. BUSINESS OF THE SENATE Treasury Board’s website will list all of those for you. I do not propose, at this time, to talk about the statutory items but, rather, Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): to talk briefly about what is in this particular report dealing with Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to voted items, as those are the ones you will be asked to vote on inform the Senate that when we proceed to Government Business, fairly soon. It is important, therefore, that we have some the Senate will address the items in the following order: the understanding of what is in there. nineteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, the seventeenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, Bill C-58, Bill C-59 and the . (1510) other items as they appear on the Order Paper. English] Going forward, we will see the Main Estimates and the [ supplementary estimates in which federal budget expenditures were announced. In various budgets the government announces THE ESTIMATES, 2013-14 projects and money that will be committed to do certain things. It is not always reflected immediately. It could be a year or two MAIN ESTIMATES—NINETEENTH REPORT OF down the line. In the past we have asked, ‘‘Where did this come NATIONAL FINANCE COMMITTEE ADOPTED from? It is in the omnibus bill. Where did this come from?’’ Treasury Board, at the request of parliamentarians, will now The Senate proceeded to consideration of the nineteenth report indicate which budget initiated this particular proposed (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance expenditure. We will have to approve it but at least we will (2013-2014 Main Estimates) tabled earlier this day. know where it came from.

Hon. Joseph A. Day: Honourable senators, yesterday I referred I remind honourable senators as well that this particular report to this report as being forthcoming. Our committee worked on the and the Main Estimates began to be prepared before Christmas, report this morning, and I am now very pleased to be able to back in the fall and leading forward. The documents were made present it to you for consideration. available to us about two or three weeks ago, before the budget was out. The budget is sacred and confidential so there is nothing You should be able to find on your desk, somewhere in the in this particular document that is reflective of the most recent paper that is there, the report entitled First Interim Report on the budget. What is reflected is previous budget matters that are now 2013-14 Main Estimates, our nineteenth report. That, honourable at the stage where the government wishes to go forward with senators, is the report that forms the basis for consideration of the them, plus it is not a zero-base accounting process. Many

Senator Cordy: March 26, 2013 SENATE DEBATES 3597 departments will look at what they spent last year and then move there is an increase of $224 million in additional funding over last that forward and say, ‘‘This is what we anticipate spending this fiscal year to continue the implementation of the Indian year, so please approve that.’’ Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. That was divided into two parts. First, there was the common experience. That is, Certainly with respect to salaries, unless they are told to reduce anyone who went to a residential school received an amount of salaries, the department will ask for roughly the same plus the money if they applied and proved they had gone to the school. cost-of-living escalator for another year. They are already up There is then the second part, which is a much more troublesome there in their departments because a big part of departmental aspect that has to be dealt with through a tribunal and assessment expenditures relate to salaries and benefits. of the situation, where someone is claiming that he or she was sexually abused during a time at the school. Honourable senators, one item I mentioned yesterday was the $200 million or $300 million to satisfy the Department of From the common experience point of view, the deadline has National Defence problem, where they had been deducting a passed for people to apply. That was September 2012. As of Veterans Affairs disability allowance from the pension that the December, just a couple of months ago, Aboriginal Affairs retired member would get when he or she retires from the received 106,000 applications, with no question. All you have to government and from the Armed Forces. A court case that will do is prove you went to the school. The total liability is now not be appealed, by announcement of the minister, has resulted in $1.62 billion. That is for that aspect; we cannot tell what the that very significant amount of hundreds of millions of dollars for liability will be for the other aspect. There will not be quite as back deductions that should not have taken place. There will be many applicants, but the figure is high. To my recollection, it is lump sums going to those injured personnel where there was a about 75 per cent of those who went to the school who are at least deduction in their allowances. That will be returned to them. claiming that they were abused verbally, sexually or in some way harassed and are looking for assistance. In addition to that, there is a go forward. I mentioned that yesterday. There will be a go forward every year from here on. Honourable senators, I know my time is running down, but I There will be an additional amount that will be in the near future, am trying to give you some of the highlights. Public Works and probably next year it will be part of personnel expenses, but it is Government Services is projecting a gross budgetary expenditure still taken out here and shown as an item. It amounts to of $5.9 billion. All of Public Works and Government Services is $71 million in expenditures for Veterans Affairs in relation to the $5.9 billion. Compare that to the $8 billion that I just talked implementation of that court case. That gives an indication of the about for Aboriginal Affairs and that puts it into perspective. impact of that court case as it moves forward. There is an increase in the budget of $256 million for the Honourable senators, we discussed the federal debt in renovation of the Parliament Buildings. The cost keeps going up committee. We were referred to the Department of Finance’s here; $54 million to acquire a complex in Gatineau called Les report that comes out annually called the ‘‘Debt Management Terrasses de la Chaudiere. The government has been paying Report.’’ I have made note of that in here. The Debt Management $12 million a year in rent for this property and they are now Report shows the accumulated debt, which is each year’s deficit. purchasing the property for $54 million to acquire the complex. In They are all accumulated and it creates an obligation. We have four years, it will pay for itself. The payback is just over four been fortunate with low interest rates, which means this number years. that the government must set aside to meet the interest on the accumulated debt is an interestingly small number compared to what it has been in the past. Honourable senators, there is a $32-million expenditure that senators from the East will be aware of, which is to support the The accumulated federal debt, estimated as of the end of next implementation of a consolidation of pay services for a pay week, the end of this fiscal year, with an estimated budgetary services branch in the Miramichi in New Brunswick. Obviously, deficit for the fiscal year ending next week of $25 billion, will now with the new technology, there will be fewer people working there, be over $600 billion. Honourable senators can compare that to but $32 million is going into that project. where it was in 2006, which is a significant year. The accumulated debt then was $460 billion that we had to carry. It is now over From the RCMP’s point of view, there are a number of changes $600 billion and we are going into another fiscal year that will because new contracts for services have now been entered into, have probably upwards of $20 billion more to add to that. which has taken some time. We had a very interesting discussion. The general rule is that the community or province hiring the Some Hon. Senators: Shame. RCMP services has a signed contract to pay 70 per cent of the cost while 30 per cent is paid by the federal government. Senator Day: Those are important figures that honourable senators will want to keep in mind. . (1520)

There are significant amounts of money in Aboriginal Affairs Their projections with respect to the numbers of women in each year. We have to get this expenditure under control because uniform in the RCMP are to reach 30 per cent by 2025. That it continues to go up rapidly. In the Department of Aboriginal seems somewhat less than ambitious when the current figure is Affairs the amount is approximately $8 billion each year. That around 20 per cent. I know that 2025 is coming up in 12 years, but $8 billion, in difficult economic times, is a lot of money. That one would think that, with the intake they have on an annual amount is made up of a number of different items, of course, but basis, they might be able to increase that somewhat. 3598 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2013

Honourable senators, might I have five more minutes? years of funding, some parts of the investment plan have to be approved from year to year by Parliament. The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? Strike out the next words ‘‘some parts of the investment plan’’ and insert ‘‘expenditures’’ in their place. Hon. Senators: Agreed. Departments do all the planning for a good number of years Senator Day: Thank you, honourable senators. out, but we wanted to ensure that honourable senators understand that expenditures have to be approved each year by I will talk about the important area of Transport Canada where Parliament. That is the change. Parliament does not approve the the projected expenditures are $1.5 billion. This is a reduction of 20-year program or part of that. I hope honourable senators have 27 per cent from last year’s estimates. The officials explained that not been misled and have that change. That was the only other operating expenditures were down due to cuts announced in change to facilitate an understanding of the report. Budget 2012. The net reductions of $560.3 million include a decrease in contributions to the Gateways and Border Crossings The report is reflective of the preliminary work that the Funds, one of the projects where there was a significant projection committee has done. On behalf of the deputy chair and all of funding. committee members, I thank the representatives of the Library of Parliament for the fine work they have done on short notice in An interesting figure of $113 million is for the acquisition of preparing, translating and amending this report. land so that the Detroit River International Crossing project can go ahead. My recollection of that is that the federal government is I commend the report to honourable senators for their reading buying land on the U.S. side of the river so they can get the bridge and approval. built because there was a lot of reluctance there. Hon. Larry W. Smith: Honourable senators, I thank the chair At Infrastructure Canada, the Gas Tax Fund continues for for an outstanding job. People have said that Senator Day is one another year or so. There had been announcements that this of the few people who understand the process of the Main would be permanent, but we are still doing it on a year-to-year Estimates. basis. It is $2 billion. I was not aware that $25 million of that goes to Aboriginal Affairs for Aboriginal communities, with the I draw the attention of honourable senators to the bottom of remaining $1.974 billion going to Infrastructure Canada. page 2, in terms of understanding the document. I am not trying to be condescending because understanding the budget is a complex issue. Sub-notes 1 and 2 should provide a clear The Department of National Defence is the final one I will understanding in terms of the reading of this document. touch on today, honourable senators. DND is estimating expenditures of $17.9 billion, which is a decrease in net It was mentioned by Senator Day that Treasury Board has authority of $1.8 billion or a 9 per cent reduction. It is largely streamlined the process. The idea of streamlining the process was due to decreases in operating costs of $1.25 billion, which can be to make it more effective in its presentation and easier to attributed mainly to the strategic review. understand. Of course, today it is important that Bill C-58 and Bill C-59 pass third reading. DND seemed to handle its strategic review a bit differently. Two reviews were imposed by the government: One was a deficit Other than that, the document is straightforward. When we talk reduction review and the other was a strategic review. We found about the public debt of $582 billion, it is important to keep this that a department will say, ‘‘We have saved x million dollars.’’ in perspective: Public debt charges, and this is on page 6, as a They then apply in supplementary estimates to apply that amount percentage of revenues have been decreasing in recent years to a new project. The government approves it, but Treasury falling from 37.6 per cent in 1990-91 to 12.7 per cent in 2011-12. Board allows it to be spent, which it is doing. A new expenditure When honourable senators hear the big numbers, it is important is being created to use up what was supposed to be saved. That is to understand how they fall into the line of percentage of revenue why we see the overall projection of expenditure staying the same, versus public debt. while the government announces that they have saved x million dollars. It was saved and then used again. The Department of An excellent job was done by the chair, committee members and National Defence will not receive permission to use it again; so it the steering committee. is different from that point of view. Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators, Senator Smith I refer honourable senators to page 19 of the report to make a made me think of something. He talked about the public debt correction as we misspoke slightly. The fourth paragraph on page charges decreasing in recent years, falling from 37.6 per cent in 19 states: The officials said that their department did not present a 1990-91 to 12.7 per cent in 2011-12. request for funds for the Defence Strategy in the main estimates because, while the government had planned for 20 years of However, where do interest rates figure in that? What will funding, some parts of the investment plan have to be approved happen if the rates go up? from year to year by Parliament. . (1530) The officials said that their department did not present a request for funds for the Defence Strategy in the main Senator L. Smith: Thank you very much for the question. If I estimates because, while the government had planned for 20 cannot answer properly, hopefully Senator Day will assist me.

Senator Day: March 26, 2013 SENATE DEBATES 3599

I would assume it would be because of lower interest rates; there We have the gender split numbers for the RCMP, for example. has been a positive impact on that percentage. The threat that Twenty-one per cent of the employees of the RCMP are women at always exists is when interest rates increase with debt, such as with this time, and I think there is an objective to push that number to a mortgage. If a simple $300,000 mortgage at 3 points suddenly about 30 per cent within the next five to seven years. Perhaps it is goes up to 6 points, it is more than just going up 3 points; it is a twelve years. doubling. Senator Dyck: I would ask my honourable friend if he could This is one of the problems that the U.S. had when they gave also please find out how many staff within Aboriginal Affairs and special deals to people who could not afford to have a $300,000 Northern Development Canada are Aboriginal. debt even at 3 points if they were earning $10,000 or $15,000 of income. These things happen. It is a case of interest rates and Senator L. Smith: Thank you. adjustments. The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Are there any further questions? Senator Moore: What happens if they do go up during this fiscal year and we have increased public debt charges? Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Senator L. Smith: In having listened to Mark Carney before the Hon. Senators: Question. Banking Committee when I was fortunate enough to sit on it, I can only suggest that there is a strong suggestion that, because of The Hon. the Acting Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable the state of fragility of the world economy, interest rates will Senator Day, seconded by the Honourable Senator Moore, that probably be at the lower end for the next 18 to 24 months before this report be adopted. there would be a move. There is some suggestion that increasing the interest rates in the United States will push the stock market Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? up as the states become stronger economically. Hon. Senators: Agreed. There is always a threat with the movement and volatility of rates, but it looks like rates will be steady for the next 18 to 24 (Motion agreed to and report adopted.) months. That is what the Governor of the Bank of Canada says.

Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: Honourable senators, I have two APPROPRIATION BILL NO. 5, 2012-13 technical questions. I thank the honourable senator for this report. It is very well laid out. THIRD READING

As I was reading through it, I noticed under Aboriginal Affairs Hon. Larry W. Smith moved third reading of Bill C-58, An Act and Northern Development Canada that the increase is 2.3 per for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal cent whereas the increase in the budget works out to be 7 per cent public administration for the financial year ending March 31, under the RCMP. Is the increase of 2.3 per cent in AANDC part 2013. of the decision from way back in 1996 to limit increases in Aboriginal Affairs to 2 per cent, or is that something separate? He said: Honourable senators, I do not have anything else to say other than that we proceed. Senator L. Smith: I must plead ignorance because I was not involved in the Senate in those days. I would maybe ask our chair Hon. Joseph A. Day: Honourable senators, I do not have a lot if he had any prior knowledge to be able to assist us in answering to add to those comments. However, I do have two or three the question. Alternatively, I could ask Senator Buth if she had points that have been brought to my attention as well as a anything to add. question that was outstanding earlier that I would like to clarify so that honourable senators will understand what is in this bill. I apologize. We could follow up and try to get an answer, if that would be all right. First, we discussed yesterday the high commission in the U.K., in London. I pointed out to honourable senators that the property that had been purchased was next to Canada House Senator Dyck: Thank you. and Trafalgar Square, and that was $71 million. That is my recollection. It is the intention of the government to sell the Second, it states in the report that the RCMP has about 30,000 residence and the high commission on Grosvenor Square, which is employees, but it does not have a specific number for Aboriginal also in London, in the Mayfair area. Affairs. Could the honourable senator point me to the source where I could find out how many employees are in Aboriginal I extrapolated from that incorrectly — and I apologize if I have Affairs and Northern Development Canada? I suspect it is misled anyone — that it would mean that the new building probably 10,000 or 30,000 as well. I do not suppose any witness purchased would become the residence. That is not necessarily the was asked that question. Also, how many are Aboriginal? case. We do not know where the new residence will be, and we do not know if there will be residences for some of the employees in Senator L. Smith: We would probably have to go back and find this new building. However, we do know that Canada House is a out the exact number of employees and get back to the very large building that can accommodate all the meetings that we honourable senator. have had thus far. Therefore, a lot of the chancery and work that 3600 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2013 goes on by the high commission in London will be going on in There was another question with respect to government Canada House and in this new building we have acquired next to advertising that I thought I could help clarify. I had already it. finished speaking, so I did not have a chance to reply to that question at the time. Honourable senators should know that in I do not know what will happen in relation to the balance. our report there is a discussion with respect to government However, I went back to the questions and answers from our advertising — and this is the report on Supplementary Estimates committee meetings. The following question was asked: (C), not the report that is before you now — which can be found on pages 5 and 6. I am aware that the residence is also at Grosvenor Square as well as the meeting rooms. I was wondering what was There are two ways that the government can advertise. First, happening with respect to the residence, but so far it the departments and agencies can make advertising expenditures remains. through the federal government advertising program, a horizontal item that is set out in the supplementary estimates. Second, they That is what we asked, and the witness said, ‘‘For the moment it can fund advertising expenditures through their own operating remains; that is right.’’ budget. The Treasury Board officials then suggested that the committee consult — and this may be of help to those who were We later asked the same question, and Mr. Patel, a interested in this — the Annual Report on Government of Canada representative of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Advertising Activities published by the Department of Public International Trade, said: Works and Government Services to obtain further details about federal advertising expenditures. ... we are applying Workplace 2.0 standards — The report shows that the federal government spent — that must be a government term — $86.9 million on advertising in the year 2006-07, $84.1 million in 2007-08, and — this is a good one — in 2008-09 it was — so there is a 20 per cent savings there. As you know, $136 million. Macdonald House includes staff quarters as well as an official residence. Senator Mitchell: What is that as a cost per vote?

That is the one on Grosvenor Square. Senator Day: Honourable senators, I have added up the monthly and yearly Government of Canada expenditures. Keep In keeping with the Budget 2012 — in mind there are departmental expenditures for advertising in addition, but for the period from 2002-03 to 2006-07, four years, — last year’s budget — the government spent $271.6 million on advertising. For the period 2006 to 2010-11, the government spent $470 million on — commitment for official residence right-sizing, we will be advertising. moving to a smaller residence. That will result in cost savings as well, for both capital as well as operating. The Senator Mitchell: What are they trying to sell? staff quarters will be right-sized also; there will be smaller staff quarters, and there will be capital and operating Senator Day: Honourable senators, I hope that will help clarify savings from that again. that point.

Then we asked: The final point I want to clarify from yesterday’s discussion is that we talked about the emergency fund that CIDA and Foreign To clarify, you are talking about the residence and Affairs wished to set up. They were asking for $60 million and to downsizing. Will that be a rental accommodation, or do we be able to access it without going through the normal checks, anticipate as part of the overall package another capital which is one of those red flag areas. We were told by the acquisition for residence? Canadian International Development Agency that they would like to increase that to $100 million. On an annual basis we This will be a third building. Ms. Renetta Siemens, another approve that, and if they spend anything out of it, to top it up representative, replied: again we approve what has been sent and bring it back up to the $60 million as it now exists. I had anticipated that when we Based on Treasury Board policy and direction, given the looked at the Main Estimates for this year we would find it there. high price of the London marketplace, the assessment is that However, I spoke to CIDA following my discussion in this it is better to purchase in London as opposed to rent. chamber yesterday and was advised that they did not have an Therefore, our presumption is that we would purchase. opportunity to get their paperwork together in time, so we should Again, the monies for that purchase would be coming from anticipate seeing that sometime in this fiscal year in one of the the sale of Macdonald House. supplementary estimates.

. (1540) Honourable senators, we are now debating third reading of Bill C-58, which is supported by our report on the Supplementary That is the most up-to-date information we have with respect to Estimates (C); it is for $1.545 billion, and that is to conclude this that matter. It is a little bit different from what I mentioned fiscal year that is just about to end. There were some government yesterday, honourable senators, so I wanted to clarify that. expenditures and government activity that had to be covered off,

[ Senator Day ] March 26, 2013 SENATE DEBATES 3601 and that is what this is, honourable senators. I commend our Let us look at Schedule 1.1, which asks for a significant amount report and the work that our committee has done in bringing this of money at the front end. It is Natural Resources and Treasury information to you. Board. Treasury Board is asking for its money up front for one in particular. It is their vote 5, which is contingency. The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Continuing debate? Are senators ready for the question? . (1550) Hon. Senators: Question. This is another one of those pots of money that is available The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable without the normal checks, and we have to keep an eye on this. senators, to adopt the motion? There are two we talked about today. We in finance are very conscious that it is important for us to keep a close eye on those funds that do not go through the normal process. Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: On division. On contingency vote 5, we are giving eleven twelfths of the funds up front. That is just an example of these. I will not analyze (Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed, on each of them. division.) There is also a schedule 2, and the schedule 2, honourable APPROPRIATION BILL NO. 1, 2013-14 senators, as I have pointed out in previous estimates, is for approvals that are given for two years. All the other departments, except those that come under schedule 2, are for one year only, THIRD READING but schedule 2 includes Canada Revenue Agency, Environment Canada, Parks Canada and Public Safety and Emergency Hon. Larry W. Smith moved third reading of Bill C-59, An Act Preparedness. Those departments get approval for two years. for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal Sometimes you will see them spending money in the next year and public administration for the financial year ending March 31, you will not recall having approved that. You did a year and a 2014. half earlier. This is a little tricky one that is important to be aware of. It is only those departments, so far, that have been authorized He said: After the discussion we just had, I have no further by the government and, therefore, authorized by us when we comments and would defer to our chair if, with your permission, approve these to allow a two-year appropriation. For most he has comments to make. others, there is some carry forward, but they have to come back to us, reprofile and ask for the funds again. Hon. Joseph A. Day: Honourable senators, Bill C-59 is interim supply; I mentioned that when we were dealing with the interim That is our job — to approve funding and then ensure that the report. This bill is asking for this government — this is the funds are spent in the manner requested. If a department wants to executive, asking Parliament, which controls all appropriations, take money from vote 1 operations and put it into vote 5 capital, you and me — to approve expenditures on an interim basis for the they have to come back to Parliament, to us, in the form of a coming fiscal year starting April 1 in the amount of supplementary estimate. We take it to committee and ask $26,392,186,039.19. questions: Why are you doing this? How did you happen to have the money left over from one to the other? Those are the There are two schedules attached to this bill, Schedules 1 and 2, kinds of questions we ask in order to do the job that is expected of and those appear as an addendum to the estimates. Your us as senators in the chamber of sober second thought. committee has studied the estimates, and we have looked at the schedules that were in the estimates. We had these to look at, and you have just heard our report. We find the schedules in this bill Thanks you, honourable senators. that we have just received are the same as the schedules in the estimates. There are no differences. On one occasion we found some differences because we do verify that, and it is quite The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Are honourable senators ready important that we do so because that shows we are doing our job. for the question?

I pointed out yesterday that most of this interim supply is for Some Hon. Senators: Question! three months. It is for three— twelfths of the year to the end of June, and then we will do main supply at that time. However, there are a number of different subsets to the schedule. I will not The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, is it your go through all of them, but I did take a look at some of the pleasure to adopt the motion? subsets so that Honourable senators would know what is happening here. Schedule 1.2, for example, is for nine months. Different departments get more interim funding. Why is that? It is Some Hon. Senators: Agreed. probably because their expenses are not straight line. As I mentioned earlier, if they have more upfront expenses, they will get more money in the interim. Some Hon. Senators: On division. 3602 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2013

(Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed, on country uphold its integrity with respect to all our international division.) partners. Canada is determined to pursue its efforts in combatting foreign corruption and supporting a framework conducive to continued vigilance in order to ensure the jobs, growth and CORRUPTION OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS ACT economic prosperity that Canadians deserve. We are determined to pursue whatever efforts are necessary to combat foreign BILL TO AMEND—THIRD READING corruption. I believe this legislation does just that.

Hon. Janis G. Johnson moved third reading of Bill S-14, An Act Hon. David P. Smith: Honourable senators, I could give a to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. lengthy speech, but I will not. We on this side support this bill. In 1998, the Liberal government ratified the OECD convention on combatting bribery of foreign public officials in international She said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to business transactions, and this bill help to further implement the begin debate on Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act. The convention. Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has had the opportunity to examine both the content and context of the amendments to the existing act. A strong overall We support this measure, and honourable senators who want to consensus has been reached by members on both sides that these know why may read my speech on second reading in Hansard on amendments are not only necessary but long overdue. February 27. To expedite the passage of this bill and to assist in moving matters along in this chamber, I will not speak but simply indicate our support for this bill. Concerns regarding two particular amendments were raised by outside stakeholders and were duly addressed by officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade’s In the spirit of working together, it would be nice if the Criminal, Security and Diplomatic Law Division. Our government side took a similar approach to the adoption of government is aware of the realities on the ground in the lesser reports from standing committees that have been approved developed countries and would not enact amendments that would unanimously rather than delay them. criminally prosecute Canadians who are put in life or death situations by corrupt foreign officials. On the contrary, this Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I commend legislation is designed to tighten up current laws and close both Senator Johnson and Senator David Smith for their input on loopholes in order to prevent Canadian individuals and businesses this bill. It has been some time in coming to us with the from engaging in acts that constitute outright bribery and amendments, and I think they did a lot to facilitate its passage in corruption with the intention of securing business deals. the Senate.

Honourable senators, Canada has long played a prominent role I wish to put on the record that there had been a on the international stage in combatting corruption. Our anti- misunderstanding in our committee between the department corruption laws stand as a reminder that corruption is not the officials of Foreign Affairs who came before the committee and Canadian way of doing business. Bill S-14 is an expression of the some questions that Senator Downe had asked them. They government’s commitment to continued vigilance. It signals our indicated that they had not received the answers at the time we commitment to redouble the fight against bribery and corruption, went to vote, but, in fact, in clarification afterwards, they satisfied and it sends a message of our expectation that other countries do Senator Downe’s concerns, and therefore what I had said I would the same. say here becomes redundant.

Honourable senators, I am proud to report that our The issue related to a suggestion that the OECD members government remains committed to combatting foreign consider requiring tax officials to identify and disclose evidence of corruption, and Bill S-14 reflects what we believe is the will of bribery to law enforcement agencies. Canadians and Canadian businesses and stakeholders. . (1600) In January 2012, over 30 expert stakeholders in Canadian businesses law firms, academic institutions and non-governmental This recommendation was brought to our attention in a letter organizations participated in a consultation organized by the from a Canadian citizen with some understanding of the issues. Government of Canada in Ottawa on the issue of corruption and He was concerned that no such provisions are featured in foreign bribery. It provided an opportunity for fulsome discussion Bill S-14. Unfortunately, he was not available to appear before on concrete steps that could be taken to improve the enforcement our committee. of the CFPOA as well as an opportunity to further encourage Canadian companies to prevent bribery before it happens and to We undertook, however, to look into the issue. We learned that detect it if it occurs. As a direct response to stakeholders’ views, its concerns were simply a general recommendation of the OECD the six amendments will help ensure that Canadian companies but not an obligation within the OECD Convention for continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International expanded global trade. Business Transactions. As such, the recommendation falls outside the purview of Bill S-14. Canada is a trading nation, honourable senators, and our economy and future prosperity depend upon expanding our trade We now understand that the Department of Finance is looking ties with the world. As we continue to broaden our international at how they can contribute to anti-bribery and corruption efforts. trading relationships across the globe, it is essential that our However, implementing the OECD recommendation or some March 26, 2013 SENATE DEBATES 3603 variation of it would involve fundamental changes to the Income importance of the approach that the government has taken in Tax Act. We were further told that it would be enacted under proposing Bill C-53 because it sets a precedent for future changes. separate legislation should there be a completion of that study It is important for us to understand that constitutional law and negotiations. evolves through sets of precedents. What we are doing today could influence the future in additional changes to the law of Honourable senators, I simply want to indicate that the other succession. As I outlined in my first remarks, we can expect — of area was to do with facilitation of payments and whether there course I cannot predict in how many years — that there will be should be further negotiations and discussions. I think to the changes in the future. satisfaction of the committee there was an understanding that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will Finally, I want to address the two questions that were raised by continue to work with Canadian companies to ensure that they Senator Fraser yesterday in relation to this bill: first, the fact that understand what ‘‘enforcement’’ will mean -and that the Prime Minister sent a letter instead of an order-in-council to implementation and enactment will occur only after such Westminster, as was done in 1936-37; and second, the wording of consultation. the bill calling upon this Parliament to approve a bill that has been laid before Westminster might raise the question of the Again, I am pleased that we are proceeding with this bill, and I amendments brought by the House of Commons at Westminster, thank all members of the committee for their support, therefore changing the letter of the act to which we are assenting. understanding and commitment on working and combating bribery. I will come back to my first set of remarks, which deal with the The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Continuation of the debate? historical background of those changes. Honourable senators will understand that when we talk about changing laws that have been Senator Carignan: Question. on the books since 1689 or 1700, it does not happen suddenly. It does not happen by the call of a miracle. One cannot expect at the The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Are honourable senators ready point in time in the evolution of the world, especially of the for the question? constitutional monarchy, the institution under which we live, that important changes happen at the point at which they are proposed to Parliament. Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable In reviewing the debates in Westminster, I was to a point senators, to adopt the motion? surprised that those changes I outlined earlier came from a report published in 2003 by the Fabian Society, a socialist group formed Hon. Senators: Agreed. at the turn of the century by the likes of Virginia Woolf, Oscar Wilde, Bertrand Russell and George Bernard Shaw, luminaries in (Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.) those days and today, of course, icons of British culture that everyone likes to quote from at some point in a speech, at the dinner table or in writing because the people who founded that BILL TO ASSENT TO ALTERATIONS IN THE LAW society strongly believe that changes should be gradual instead of TOUCHING THE SUCCESSION TO THE THRONE revolutionary. Therefore, they applied their minds to propose changes to British society for the last 100 years or so. THIRD READING What is stunning is that in 2003 the Fabian Society released a On the Order: book entitled The Future of the Monarchy, and all of the changes we are being asked to assent to today were, in fact, taken out of Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable that publication. It is not strange, but ideas when first expressed Senator LeBreton, P.C., seconded by the Honourable look to be marginal or too original to really be taken seriously. Senator Carignan, for the third reading of Bill C-53, An However, at some point in time, they lead their way into people’s Act to assent to alterations in the law touching the minds and are finally accepted as common wisdom. I think the Succession to the Throne. Fabian publication of 2003 is such a thing. It was taken on by the Blair government, a Labour government. It was then endorsed by Hon. Serge Joyal: Honourable senators, it is a pleasure to have the David Cameron government, a minority government, but it the opportunity to share with you conclusions at the closing of was shared with the Liberal Democrats. There is now a consensus this debate on Bill C-53. in British society that those ideas, which 10 years ago looked rather radical — I checked with the BBC to see when the I would like to propose three sets of remarks. The first is related publication was released in 2003. Their headline read — from July to the background of the changes that Bill C-53 enshrines; that is, 2003 read:— the opening of succession to the throne to any child born, whatever the sex of that child. The second set of changes is to open marriage to persons of the Roman Catholic faith. Finally, Radical changes proposed for monarchy. the third set of changes limits the power of the Queen or the King to give his or her consent to marriages to the sixth line. ... The proposals are among a series of far-reaching changes recommended by the Fabian Society. However, the left-wing The second group of remarks I would like to share essentially think tank fell short of suggesting the abolition of the Royal relate to the work of the committee. I would like to touch on the Family. 3604 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2013

It went on to say: to a definition of marriage that in the course of the debates at Westminster in the House of Commons and in the House of A year-long inquiry into the future of the monarchy also Lords has been changed to be open to recognize marriage between suggested the centuries-old ban on a Catholic monarch persons of the same sex and the adoption of children under that should be lifted. marriage.

Later on: I do not want to stretch it too much because honourable senators will say that I am ludicrous, but one can expect that if ... the principle that sons of sovereigns and their descendants one applies proposed section 2 of this bill, one day there could be have precedence over daughters in succeeding to the throne an ascendant to the throne covered by this new definition of should be scrapped. marriage.

In other words, those ideals that sounded radical 10 years ago I do not know if most honourable senators saw the famous when I listened to the Honourable Leader of the Government Spielberg film Lincoln. Remember when they were in a position to were filled with praise of modernizing the ‘‘institution.’’ abolish slavery? Then one of the secretaries of state said, ‘‘If we abolish slavery, one day they will ask to vote.’’ I do not know if I personally have a different opinion in qualifying those changes honourable senators remember that. I was sitting in my seat as modernization. I think they are much more profound than listening to that and thought, ‘‘What if he knew that one day the modernization. I think they address the very core of the president would be Black?’’ institution of the constitutional monarchy. That is why I think it was wise for this House of Parliament to try to look into its With time and evolution of society, things that seem to be committee work to address those issues. outrageous or out of this world just become the norm. Why? Because civilized society always evolves toward the greatest level . (1610) of freedom and the greatest level of dignity. That is the very core of what we call civilization. Of course, there are issues that the committee did not address. I will not say I deplore it, but I will lay them on the table in this Any society like the British society that was in the 19th century chamber because in the future — I cannot qualify how soon it will at the vanguard of the political institutions in the concept of be — I am sure that we or our successors in the chamber will have human rights is open to that kind of evolution and redefinition of to address them. Those are linked to the status of the King or the the substance of freedom and human dignity. One day we can Queen as head of the Church of the England. expect that there will be changes that we cannot foresee or even think about today because we would give the impression of being The Fabian report, again, recommended some changes that totally crazy in the mind. Nevertheless, this is part of the reality were not part of Bill 123 tabled at Westminster and that we that this bill enshrines. assented to, but I think that the proposed changes will one day be the subject of discussion in the public and in Parliament. I think that the Fabian reports mention why. A significant number of As I said, honourable senators, from the beginning to the end people see the kind of fate as being something under the Church there has been a major change in the substance of this bill, the of England that is not as pervasive in British society as it once redefinition of marriage. We have not, as I said earlier, addressed was. One can deplore it, but one has to recognize that fact. that at the committee stage. It would have been interesting to have that kind of reflection because today we are assenting to that evolution. It is an important element that we keep in mind and Although it is not part of this bill, proposed section 2 of the bill put on the record, because one day we might be called to assent to reopens this side issue by allowing a future successor to the throne other changes that today, for the time being, do not seem to be to marry a Roman Catholic. If one would have said at the time of thinkable or something we can imagine with a normal mind. Henry VIII or Queen Elizabeth I that a successor of the throne would one day be able to marry a Catholic, I think one’s head would have been chopped off in the Tower of London because it The committee had the benefit of addressing the process. We would be so outrageous. It addressed the very foundations of the heard from Professor Andrew Heard from Simon Fraser monarchy, because the monarchy was closely linked to the University. Church of England. [Translation] I say that with the greatest respect to the Church of England because of the service, importance and influence that the Church We heard from Professor Benoît Pelletier, a former Quebec of England has had, not only in England but also in Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. He is an expert on the the Commonwealth countries generally. The changes that at that interpretation of section 44 of the Canadian Constitution, the point in time appeared to be radical now seem to be normal or section at the heart of the referral made by the government of the hoped for by the majority of the population. day to the Supreme Court of Canada. Professor Pelletier is perfectly qualified to answer the question as to whether the I want to outline another fact. Since Bill 123 was tabled in the provinces should support the changes being proposed by the British House of Commons in January, the definition of marriage government. has changed in Britain. I direct this in particular to the Honourable Senator Rivest, a Honourable senators might not remember that on February 5 veteran of constitutional debates, both in the early 1980s and at Westminster changed the definition of marriage. We are assenting the time of the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown

[ Senator Joyal ] March 26, 2013 SENATE DEBATES 3605

Accord. We asked Professor Pelletier the following very clear very clear. In my opinion, humbly put to you, I think those question: Should the provinces support this bill? changes are fundamental, and we might be called again in the future to assent to other changes. I would like to be able to read Senators Rivest’s comments. That is why I would like the official record, the Debates of the That being said, the committee also reviewed the legitimacy of Senate, to clearly reflect his response, because in the future, it the process we are now following. Professor Pelletier raised might be important to know exactly what happened and how we another question, which was also put to us by the second group of went about examining Bill C-43. witnesses we heard. The representative of the Canadian Royal Heritage Trust advocated that if we are to assent to changes to the royal succession or royal style and title, we should adopt the same When he appeared on March 20, 2013, I asked Professor act that Westminster is discussing now. In other words, we should Pelletier the following question: adopt word for word the same act.

Senator Joyal: Mr. Pelletier, I would like to go back to That is their contention. They claim that the law of succession is the matter of applying section 41. Professor Patrick Taillon, part of the Canadian Constitution, even though the schedule of who teaches in the Faculty of Law at the Université de the Canadian Constitution that was added to the Constitution Laval, published an article on February 3, 2013, on the Act in 1982 does not mention any of those acts, and even though succession bill. In his article he argues that the bill in the Supreme Court, in many of its decisions, recognized that our question, and I quote: Constitution is defined on the same principles as the United Kingdom constitution but not essentially on the very statute that ...directly relates to the office of the Queen, which are defined the constitution of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. constitutionally protected by the 1982 Constitution. That contention was put to us, and I think it was well answered His entire theory, his entire interpretation in that long by the testimony of Professor Pelletier. I think the Statute of article, is based on the fact that section 31 stipulates that any Westminster is pretty clear. The Statute of Westminster is part of changes to the office of the Queen must, of course, be our Constitution. What does the Statute of Westminster state? A subject to the unanimity formula. He concluded his article simple thing: The Parliaments of the Dominion have to assent. by saying that, accordingly, the provinces should all express We have to assent. It does not say that we have to adopt the same their consent to the changes set out in Bill C-53. legislation; it says that we have to assent.

I repeat, Mr. Pelletier was Minister of Governmental Affairs in How are we assenting? We are assenting in two stages. First, we Premier Jean Charest’s government. He replied as follows, and I are assenting to discuss with London and the other realms of the quote: Commonwealth the changes. That is the first way to assent, to participate in the discussion of what the changes will be. It is similar to the situation where one receives a notice for a meeting . (1620) to define the changes that might be contemplated to an institution. If one participates in that discussion to define those With all due respect for Mr. Taillon, who is a great legal changes, one is assenting, in a way. Once those changes have been expert, I would like to say that I do not agree with him at all. discussed and have been agreed to on a consensual basis, the next step comes. Section 41 refers to the office. In my opinion, this refers to the power, status and constitutional role of the monarch, Senator Tardif: Order. but not to the issue of who can succeed the Queen. Senator Cowan: Order. ... Senator Joyal: I am sorry, Your Honour and honourable Reliable, credible legal experts have made this claim. I am senators. As in the other place, some are not interested in this convinced that if the question of whether the provinces have matter. However, we are more interested on this side. the right of veto on this issue were put to the Supreme Court of Canada, the answer would be no... Senator LeBreton: No. It is nothing to do with you, sir. [English] Senator Joyal: I am happy to recognize that the Honourable Leader of the Government in the Senate has come to participate It is quite clear, and I share the views of Professor Pelletier, and in this debate at third reading, and I thank her. I think the senators around the table at the committee also share the same view. We posed the same question to Professor Heard The second approach to participating is essentially to assent from Simon Fraser University, and he concurred. I refer formally, that is, to say ‘‘yes’’ to the changes, to endorse the honourable senators to the minutes of the committee meeting. changes, in other words, to sign the paper if you want to do so. When the Governor General gives royal sanction to those It is quite clear that this change, or a change to the royal style changes, he will formally express on our behalf the consent to and title or to the succession to the throne, does not need the those changes. In my opinion, it is very important that we follow consent of the provinces. I want to put that on the record and be that procedure. Why? We are on an equal footing with the United 3606 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2013

Kingdom in terms of defining changes to the Crown. We have, in Westminster, in other words, the bill being essentially a title. You a way, a power of veto. To put it in the Quebec government will understand that Bill C-53 does not reproduce all the sections terms... of the bill of Westminster. It is only the title.

[Translation] . (1630)

...and in the words that my colleague, Senator Rivest, likes to What is the title of a bill that is not adopted? What is the legal use. force of a bill that has not been adopted? This could be a nice question to put to students at the bar. I will give honourable [English] senators the answer. It is essentially a legislative intention. It is not binding. It is not yet adopted. It is a legislative intention. In fact, if we say ‘‘no’’ to the principle of those changes, Her Majesty has been pretty clear that: she will not give royal sanction [Translation] to those changes. In other words, we are intimately bound with the U.K. and with the 15 other realms to express assent to the It is a legislative intention. It is what we are proposing to do. definition of the changes and to consent to those changes. That, in my opinion, is a very important element, and that is the way it [English] should be because we are a sovereign country, and we are a sovereign country not in colonial times but as a full, mature country since 1982. We are the overall master of anything that can What are the changes that have been brought at Westminster? happen to our head of state. I think it is the proper formula and That was Senator Fraser’s third question. She was arguing that at the proper process to follow, and in that context, I think what we Westminster, during debate in the House of Commons, they had are doing is a full expression of the sovereignty of Canada. brought an amendment. She said that they had changed the bill. They did not change the bill; the bill is not yet adopted. They have done something to the legislative intention. As long as it is a Finally, I would like to address the two points raised yesterday legislative intention, one can bring some precision to it. In fact, if by the Honourable Senator Fraser. Senator Fraser first one reads the amendments to the bill, they address the consent mentioned that Prime Minister Harper has expressed, through a that the king or the queen should give to the marriage of the six letter to Westminster, that we are agreeing to the change. Of people in line. It says that the effect of a person’s failure to comply course, I think it is important that he signal on behalf of the with the consent of the Queen is that the person and the person’s government that a bill will be introduced. However, according to descendants are disqualified. the Statute of Westminster, it would not be sufficient to bring about the changes because, as I expressed to you, the changes have to be endorsed by Parliament. That is what the Statute of I will explain that in simple terms. It means that, if the Queen Westminster, which is constitutionalized, says. The Prime refuses to consent to the marriage of one of those six in line, that Minister cannot substitute himself to Parliament. It is quite person’s descendants could not claim to be in the line of clear in my mind. succession. However, that person might remarry a person for whom the Queen would have expressed her consent. We know The point raised by Senator Fraser is the following: Should the that it happens in modern times. I do not know if many Prime Minister have instead proposed an order-in-council? My honourable senators have relatives who have divorced in their humble opinion is that he should not have. I think it is Parliament close or extended family circles. I speak for my province and half that expresses the sovereign will of the people. I understand that of the families in Quebec are divorced and remarried or reunited in 1936 there was some urgency that there be an expression of in some shape or form. Members of the Royal Family, like any credibility, of assenting to the new monarch because the United human beings, could be in the same situation. Kingdom was faced, as was Canada, with a situation of no monarch because the king had abdicated or expressed assent to The bill makes the original intention, approved by all of the 16 the changes. In order to avoid a vacuum, there was to be a formal heads of the Commonwealth countries, more precise. They legal document binding the Government of Canada or expressing wanted to ensure that, if that person had married without the views of the Government of Canada, hence the order-in- consent of the Queen, not all of that person’s marriages would be council. disbarred by the Queen. It did not change the original intention.

However, that is not the situation we are in now. Now When we say that we are assenting to a legislative intention, we Parliament is in session; Parliament can debate those issues; and are, in fact, expressing a consent or an assent — to use the word in Parliament can express its sovereign will. I think the approach the bill — to the original legislative intention that is not changed taken by the Prime Minister is the proper approach under the by that precision. circumstances. It would be totally different if we had been prorogued and had found ourselves in a similar situation to the I want to put it on the record — that Senator Fraser has raised conditions in which they found themselves in 1936. Humbly a very useful point. If, in the future, we are called to discuss submitted, the fact that the Prime Minister chose the approach of changes, we will follow the same approach and process as sending a letter on behalf of the government is, in my opinion, the Westminster. I think it would be fair and would avoid any kind of proper approach. misgivings if the realm, the countries that share the Queen, were informed by the House of Commons or the House of Lords that The second issue put by Senator Fraser is a little more technical there has been a slight change just to further define the original but nevertheless important, and that is the fact that Bill C-53 intent without changing it, to be sure that there is no mentions essentially that we are assenting to the bill laid in misunderstanding. That would have prevented exactly the point

[ Senator Joyal ] March 26, 2013 SENATE DEBATES 3607 that Senator Fraser raised. It would also just be courteous Senator Joyal: Yes, if I have any time left. because we share the institution and want to do it in the same context that Senator Fraser and the Honourable Leader of the Hon. Jean-Claude Rivest: Honourable senators, I would first Government in the Senate have put it. It is very important that like to commend the Honourable Senator Joyal on his excellent there should be no question about how the process works and speech. I would like to ask a question that was raised in the how it evolves. Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs with regard to discrimination. We would never think to impose a In that context, I have no hesitation in supporting the bill today religious criterion when considering candidates for public office in because, as the Honourable Leader of the Government mentioned Canada because it would be contrary to the Canadian Charter of yesterday, the House of Lords has been debating amendments at Rights and Freedoms. The Queen is Canada’s head of state, and the committee stage. Those amendments were left aside; they were we have religious requirements that must be upheld. not adopted. They have a rule, contrary to our chamber, whereby, and I quote: By passing this bill, would we not be condoning a form of discrimination within the meaning of the Canadian Charter of An issue which has been fully debated and voted on or Rights and Freedoms? negatived at a previous stage of a bill may not be reopened by an amendment on third reading. Senator Joyal: The Honourable Senator Rivest asks an In other words, there is no opportunity for an amendment that excellent question, one that has already been the subject of a has been defeated at committee stage to be reintroduced at third decision by the Supreme Court of Ontario in a case involving a reading. We can do that, as honourable senators know. We do it person named Donahue, which is clearly why this case is referred regularly in our own proceedings. to as the Donahue case. The learned judge in this case had to decide whether the law touching the succession to the Throne violated the equality provisions of the Charter. The rules in the Lords are much stricter than that. The amendments at third reading can only be: This case raised a well-known principle in constitutional law, . . . to clarify any remaining uncertainties, to improve the and that is this: one part of the Constitution cannot abrogate drafting and to enable the Government to fulfill another part. In other words, although the Constitution contains undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill. a provision that, in principle, could be seen as a violation of the Charter, we already knew that this constitutional provision existed when the Charter was adopted in 1982. It is quite clear that the substance of the original intent cannot be changed at third reading in the Lords, even though they will only vote on April 22. I do not think there is any risk that the . (1640) substance of the legislative intention to which we are assenting will be substantially changed. If they change it substantially, they The law of succession included strict provisions regarding will, as I mentioned earlier, be questioning the first assent, which Catholicism and the Royal Family. If a member of the Royal was given at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting Family simply attended a mass, he or she would be automatically that took place in Perth, Australia, in 2011. There, all of the excluded from the line of succession. History shows that Her governments, including our government under Prime Minister Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has gone into Catholic churches, since Harper, assented to the principle of those changes. she has Catholic subjects, but she has never attended a mass. She has, however, attended vespers, which are not a form of religious I have no hesitation in saying that we are in a position to vote expression associated with fundamental Catholic beliefs. I believe today without finding ourselves in a position where the bill will be that the Queen did what she had to do under the circumstances. To answer your question more specifically, when the Charter was changed between now and the adoption and the Royal Assent that Her Majesty will give only when all of the rest of the realm passed, we were fully aware that there were already provisions in has endorsed the changes. In other words, Her Majesty is pretty the Constitution recognized in particular by the preamble, which clear on the very principle that I expressed earlier, that it is only if clearly states that our Constitution is similar in principle to that of everyone assents that Her Majesty will act upon the bill at the United Kingdom, and that, as a result, the Charter cannot be Westminster. invoked to abrogate any principles that were already included in the Constitution. I thank you, honourable senators. I think that it is important for us to understand this. Again, I deplore that in the other place The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue a number of times, in they did not spend two minutes on this. It is unfortunate because particular in a case that Senator Nolin is very familiar with, the the Minister of Justice, from whom we heard in committee, made well-known case of New Brunswick Broadcasting, which called a very good presentation. I am sure that the members in the other into question the privileges of the Legislative Assembly of New place, whatever their side, would have benefited from learning Brunswick regarding the broadcasting of proceedings. This was about how our institution works and what our responsibilities in why the right to freedom of expression was invoked in response to that system are to have it work properly for, as I said, the benefit the Legislative Assembly’s privilege to refuse to televise the of all Canadians. proceedings, since that privilege existed before the Charter and therefore continued to exist even under the Charter. In my [Translation] opinion, there is no chance that a case that tried to reopen the debate that took place in the Donahue case would be successful. The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Will the Honourable Senator Joyal accept questions? The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Continuing debate? 3608 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2013

Some Hon. Senators: Question! Code refers to police doing a warrantless wiretap, but it is silent on whether they ever have to notify the people whose The Hon. the Acting Speaker: The Honourable Senator communications were intercepted. That means there is no LeBreton moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator safeguard; they do not have to inform the people whose Carignan, that this bill be read the third time. Is it your communications were intercepted and they do not have to tell pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? the legislatures, Parliament or the provincial legislatures that this work has been done. Hon. Senators: Agreed. Clearly, the police will be doing these warrantless wiretaps for what they conceive to be good and urgent reasons, but that does (Motion agreed to, bill read third time and passed.) not mean there is not a need to have subsequent oversight mechanisms. It was because of the failure to notify the object of [English] the interceptions — the person — that the Supreme Court ruled that this provision was constitutionally invalid under section 8 of the Charter on reasonable search and seizure. Therefore, the law CRIMINAL CODE has to be fixed, and that is what the bill now before us does.

BILL TO AMEND—THIRD READING— Bill C-55 also addresses, at least in part, other concerns that DEBATE SUSPENDED were flagged by the Supreme Court, — not ruled on, but raised for future consideration. What does it do? Let me walk through Hon. Denise Batters moved third reading of Bill C-55, An Act the bill in order. to amend the Criminal Code. . (1650) Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, as I said in my speech at second reading on this bill, it is an important bill, one that we The first thing worth noting that the bill tackles is the question have no option but to adopt because we are confronted with a of who gets to do a warrantless wiretap. Under the existing law, deadline set for us nearly a year ago now by the Supreme Court of that person can be a peace officer. ‘‘Peace officer’’ is a broad Canada. If we had received this bill earlier, we could have done a category that can include mayors, reeves and bailiffs — folk that more thorough job of studying it, but I must say, given the very one does not necessarily want to have the right to do a warrantless tight time constraints, the committee has worked hard to examine wiretap on one’s communications. this proposed legislation and to understand its implications. I would congratulate all committee members, starting with the The bill changes that wording to ‘‘police officer,’’ which sounds chair, for that work. pretty good because, after all, it is the police that we would wish to have this power. However, the definition seems to open up I remind honourable senators that this bill is made necessary fresh loopholes. The bill says that a police officer means ‘‘any because the Supreme Court invalidated, for constitutional officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation reasons, the provision of the Criminal Code that allows, in and maintenance of the public peace.’’ Of course, that is the urgent, exigent circumstances, police to make wiretaps or phrase that caught our attention, as Senator Baker reminded us in otherwise intercept private communications without first committee that even dog catchers have as part of their official obtaining a warrant. It can apply to a number of different mandate the preservation of the public peace. kinds of communication but normally we have just referred to warrantless wiretaps, so please understand that it is not just In committee, we asked who they were talking about. ‘‘Are you wiretaps we are talking about. talking about border services agents?’’ The answer from the minister and officials was, no. ‘‘Are you talking about mall guards Our work has demonstrated that this bill does have flaws. I and private security services?’’ The answer was, no. We pressed on stress that they are not fatal flaws, but they are flaws and I do this point and eventually were told clearly that the drafters had hope that in the future further iterations will address them. military police in mind with this extra bit of definition of ‘‘police Essentially, the Supreme Court said that it is okay to do officer.’’ Military police have the power of police on bases. One warrantless wiretaps in urgent, exigent circumstances because can imagine military police facing the possibility of terrorist acts they may be necessary to prevent imminent harm — physical on a base, so they might well need this power. The drafters had harm, harm to property. We are talking about things like been concerned that, unless there was some language in the bill to kidnappings, bombings, possibly imminent murders. By accommodate them, they would not get that power under the new ‘‘imminent’’ I mean almost immediate. The idea is to use version of the legislation. wiretaps to prevent those harms, those offences, from occurring. In that sense, it is a rather unusual provision of the code in that it Honourable senators may or may not think that as drafted it is is preventative and forward oriented rather than aimed at sufficiently narrow to encompass military police but not bailiffs. I penalizing offences that have already occurred. would not be surprised if that ended up before the courts at some time. The clear, formally stated intention of this bill is to apply to As honourable senators know, the Criminal Code also provides police officers within what we normally would consider the for wiretaps with warrants. That is quite interesting because, as meaning of those words, as well as military police. the Supreme Court found, the existing provisions actually provide more protections for Canadian citizens — the provisions with Still moving through the bill in the order in which it is written, warrants — than the provisions for warrantless wiretaps now honourable senators, there is the question of reports to provide. Most notably, the present provision in the Criminal Parliament and the public, and there are several difficulties. The

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: March 26, 2013 SENATE DEBATES 3609 reports that are required to be made once a year by the Minister More problematic is the exact meaning of the phrase ‘‘any of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and by the person who was the object of the interception.’’ There seems to be provincial attorneys general are designed to be enormously considerable confusion about what that means. I will tell detailed, right down to the duration of each warrantless wiretap honourable senators what we heard. and the total duration of all wiretaps related to the offence that the police officer in question was trying to prevent. The minister said that the police are required to notify everyone, not just the accused. In retrospect, I am not quite One element is not in the long list of criteria for those reports: sure what he meant by ‘‘everyone,’’ but I will continue with what the number of interceptions that have no outcome — those that some other people thought. do not produce information about an offence, whether the specific offence that the officer had in mind or another offence A representative of the Privacy Commissioner was very pleased that the police stumble upon thanks to this wiretap. with this bill, in particular with the requirement to notify individuals who are party to the intercepted communications. Obviously, some wiretaps will go down a blind alley, not I repeat: ‘‘party.’’ That means not just the actual target — the necessarily fishing expeditions, and will not have the desired person the police are trying to get the goods on — but whosever result. It would be helpful for honourable senators in considering communications may have been intercepted, it seems to me. the impact of this legislation to know what proportion of these truly intrusive methods helped the police in their work. However, . (1700) it is not on the list of information to be recorded, because it is not on the list for wiretaps that are conducted with warrants and Maybe I am not correct about what the Privacy basically the new provisions for warrantless wiretaps pretty well Commissioner’s people said, but here is what the Canadian mirror the provisions that already exist for wiretaps with Civil Liberties Association said in their written submission to the warrants. committee. The witness was a learned lawyer. I quote from the CCLA’s brief: Another difficulty is that the provinces are required only to make these reports available to the public in some way. Even the The CCLA understands that Bill C-55 would require that Library of Parliament has had terrible difficulty finding the notice be given to all persons whose private communications reports for wiretaps that the provinces may have made. Perhaps are intercepted pursuant to a wiretap, even if they are third we might have been a little more rigorous in the language used. parties. All such persons would be the ‘‘object’’ of a wiretap within the language of the proposed s. 196.1(1).

A further difficulty is that these reports are to be annual. The I do not know about all honourable senators, but I was moving criteria refer repeatedly to interceptions that occurred or along with the assumption that there would be fairly broad proceedings that were launched — charges laid — in the notification requirements, and it seemed to me that such was previous year. However, as we all know, police work and the appropriate because a wiretap launched without judicial court system in general rarely complete anything in the space of a authorization — without a warrant — should, it seems to me, single year, especially if the case is important; and it is likely to be be subject to a greater degree of post facto oversight than things very important if it was sufficiently urgent for a warrantless that have been happening with judicial authorization. wiretap to be used in the first place. There will be considerable difficulty in some cases ensuring that these annual reports convey what has happened, and they should be updated as the years go However, then we heard from a senior representative of the by. Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Mr. Lemcke from Vancouver. He said that they ‘‘ would notify only the people who were the actual targets of the investigation.’’ This narrows right Separate from the question of reports to the public is the matter back down again the number of people who would be told that that was at the heart of the Supreme Court decision: notification the police had been listening to their private communications. It of the object of the interception. The bill says that the minister would only be the target — not even the target’s family or other shall give notice in writing to any person who was the object of contacts. the interception within 90 days after the day on which it occurred. However, one can go to court and ask a judge to allow an Royally confused, I then asked the Department of Justice extension of the period of time when one does not have to notify Canada, ‘‘Well, who is the object of the interception?’’ The answer the object of the interception. In some cases, obviously, one will was quintessentially Canadian. The answer was that ‘‘it varies want a much longer time before notifying people. Terrorist rings from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some people have very broad sometimes spend way more than 90 days plotting what they are notification requirements and some places have very narrow up to. notification requirements.’’ That was as precise as we were going to get. I find it a bit alarming that a judge can give an extension of up to three years where they do not have to notify anyone and then Honourable senators, I do actually think that as time goes by can renew it for another three years. As I mentioned in my speech we may find ourselves needing to become considerably more at second reading, the minister, when he appeared before precise about who has the right to be notified that their private committee at pre-study, said that we should trust the discretion communications have been tapped without authorization. of judges. I find it difficult to quarrel with that principle. It is a principle that our side has been upholding for some years in this The final element that we raised in committee that we had place, not always with great success. questions about was the fact that there is a coming-into-force 3610 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2013 clause in this bill. The core part of it — the bit the Supreme Court accountability of the police, I could see one of them waving at me said we have to do by April 13, 2013 — comes into force like this. If we knew the interceptions that they made, or that immediately because the deadline is upon us. However, the Senator Larry Campbell has made in his career... I am not saying requirement for reports to Parliament and to the public is delayed they made interceptions that were not judicially authorized, but for six months. We asked why, and the answer was ‘‘that the folks they know there is such a thing in a warrant as a ‘‘basket clause.’’ who have to do the reporting asked for it because it will be quite If the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association knew the complicated to set up.’’ Possibly it is. numbers of interceptions done by the basket clause, they would be a basket case. That is the normal progression of police However, one of the other things we learned in the course of investigations. these committee hearings — and Senator White and Senator Dagenais can certainly confirm this from their own experiences — The alternative title of this bill is the Response to the Supreme is that the actual use of warrantless wiretaps is fortunately very Court of Canada Decision in R v. Tse Act. The habit of the rare in this country. There is no particular reason to believe it will Department of Justice Canada to affix an ‘‘alternative title,’’ as become any more common. I cannot see that there will be a they call it, to bills is misleading. When one reads the judgment of massive volume of material for people suddenly to have to digest R v. Tse, it has nothing to do with the purpose of this legislation. and put into reportable form excessively quickly. I just do not see Imagine immediately wishing their car without any warrant. The that there was a need for the delay in this coming-into-force minister described it as being well in the case. requirement. However, there it is. The mover of the motion, who has done a tremendous job with As with all the other things I have suggested, it is not a fatal this bill on behalf of the Government of Canada — and she is flaw. I think it is a flaw. The other things that we believe are flaws sitting two chairs behind me — points out that a case involving a that I have brought to honourable senators’ attention can be kidnapping would be illustrative. That example was used over and addressed as we go forward. However, this bill, which we passed over. In this subtitle, I suppose some people would call it a on division in committee, will pass and needs to pass because one kidnapping, but the person who was kidnapped is now in jail, does not play around with a Supreme Court of Canada deadline. serving a long sentence. The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Continuing debate? . (1710) Hon. George Baker: Honourable senators, I will be brief. I am looking at the time. The person who was allegedly kidnapped was someone who had been charged with importing over $100 million worth of illegal drugs into Canada in the case of one controlled substance and I want to point out to honourable senators that this is another further in the case of others and was out on bail wearing a control example of the vital role of the Senate. There was a reason the bracelet. I do not know how the bracelet came into it if he became Supreme Court of Canada decided that there should be more missing. However, the point is that the police in Vancouver were accountability for private telephone conversations than what was saying, ‘‘Look, this is a trick. This is a ploy. He is just trying to put in the Criminal Code. I can recall when it was put in; I was a escape jurisdiction and this is some sort of a plan.’’ member of the other place. The Supreme Court of Canada drew entirely their reasons as to the legislative intention under the heading from the Senate — not from the House of Commons, but During the course of the investigation, a suitcase with $400,000 from the committees of the Senate. went missing. It got very complicated. However, this particular case was not the typical case of kidnapping, say, a child that As I pointed out before, this happens over and over again. forced the police to institute these provisions of the Criminal Those people who say, ‘‘What is the role of the Senate?’’ should Code. look to the Supreme Court of Canada. They should look to the judgments in our superior courts, provincial courts and in the Honourable senators, I support everything that has been said quasi-judicial tribunals throughout this country, and they will see by my colleague. However, the police are concerned that with this what the role of the Senate is. bill they are once again being asked to do something that is impossible, and that is to tell us the number of people who have It is kind of a boring role, though, is it not, — having constantly had their phones tapped and who were not charged; in other to deal with legislation? However, it is a vital function, as the words, the number of innocent people who had their phones Supreme Court of Canada pointed out in this particular case, tapped during a police operation. which caused this bill to be passed. Honourable senators, passing the bill allows private conversations via telephone, cell phone and A sworn information to obtain a wiretap under section 186 of computer, whether in your home, in your bedroom or in your car, the Criminal Code contains perhaps two or three objects. to be intercepted without a judge’s approval by a police officer However, when reading the evidence, one can see there are who has reasonable grounds to believe... To believe what? To maybe 50 telephone numbers associated with the object of the tap believe that ‘‘the interception is immediately necessary ‘‘to prevent that are in turn tapped. The police have to do that. Those an offence that would cause serious harm to any person or to telephone calls could be between children in someone’s residence, property.’’ but they are tapped. The questions become who should be notified that their telephone was tapped, their computer was As the police officers in the Senate here would attest to, that can tapped, or whatever else was tapped? How many people were then be elasticized. Senator White and Senator Dagenais were looking convicted, because those things stretch on for years and years and at me across the table. Every time I raised the question of the years?

[ Senator Fraser ] March 26, 2013 SENATE DEBATES 3611

I see that His Honour is rising, so I will end my comments. NAYS THE HONOURABLE SENATORS (Debate suspended.) Baker Hubley BUSINESS OF THE SENATE Callbeck Jaffer Campbell Joyal The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, it being Chaput Lovelace Nicholas 5:15 p.m., pursuant to rule 9-6, I must interrupt the proceedings Cordy Massicotte — and we will come back to debate on Bill C-55 — for the bells to Cowan Mercer ring for the deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Day Mitchell Bill C-27, which is to be held at 5:30 p.m. De Bané Moore Downe Munson Call in the senators. Dyck Ringuette Eggleton Rivest (1730) Fraser Robichaud . Furey Smith (Cobourg) Harb Tardif FIRST NATIONS FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY BILL Hervieux-Payette Watt—30

THIRD READING

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Patterson, seconded by the ABSTENTIONS Honourable Senator Wallace: THE HONOURABLE SENATORS That Bill C-27, An Act to enhance the financial accountability and transparency of First Nations, be read the third time. Nil

Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed, on the following division: CRIMINAL CODE

BILL TO AMEND—THIRD READING YEAS THE HONOURABLE SENATORS On the Order:

Andreychuk Martin Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Batters McInnis Senator Batters, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellmare McIntyre Beyak, for the third reading of Bill C-55, An Act to Beyak Meredith amend the Criminal Code. Black Nancy Ruth Boisvenu Neufeld The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, we are Braley Ngo resuming debate on Bill C-55. Senator Baker has six minutes Buth Ogilvie remaining of his time. Carignan Oh Champagne Patterson Hon. George Baker: Honourable senators, I will not take the Comeau Plett full six minutes, because I know we want to move on with Dagenais Poirier business. Demers Raine Doyle Rivard Duffy Runciman Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh! Enverga Seidman Fortin-Duplessis Seth Senator Baker: Having said that, honourable senators, I wish to Frum Smith (Saurel) congratulate Senator Batters for her handling of this legislation Greene Stewart Olsen on behalf of the Government of Canada and Senator Runciman, Housakos Tkachuk as well, for his excellent conduct of our meetings. The Senate has Johnson Unger done its job. Lang Verner LeBreton Wallace As I mentioned, it was because of the Senate, not the House of MacDonald Wallin Commons, that the Supreme Court of Canada referenced four Maltais Wells transcripts of a Senate committee in arriving at their judgment in Manning White—53 this court case now that we have legislation to correct a Marshall constitutional problem in the Criminal Code. 3612 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2013

Honourable senators, now that we have had our meetings, one legislation. All committee members have done an excellent job on will see in court cases, if one follows them as I do every day, this bill and should be congratulated. reference to what was said in the committee as far as these arguments are concerned. That, I submit, is a function of Some Hon. Senators: Question. Parliament that cannot be performed in the House of Commons. It cannot; it is impossible. The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question? As I pointed out last week, over the past six months, six committees of Senate — six separate committees of the Senate — Hon. Senators: Yes. have been referenced in court judgments of our superior courts. I repeat: the transcript of the proceedings from six committees of The Hon. the Acting Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable the Senate. How many committees of the House of Commons Senator Batters, second by the Honourable Senator Beyak, that have been referenced? None. No House of Commons committees this bill be read the third time. Is it your pleasure, honourable have been referenced in the past six months. senators, to adopt the motion?

Honourable senators, some of those references, granted, are Some Hon. Senators: Agreed. dated. Why, even Your Honour was mentioned by the Ontario Court of Appeal just last week when a report referenced as ‘‘the Some Hon. Senators: On division. Nolin report,’’ because your honour was the chair of the committee, was admitted into evidence in the Court of Appeal. (Motion agreed to, on division, bill read third time and passed, on division.) Your Honour knows what I am about to say. The court of Quebec referenced him and his committee report not in a very friendly way. In fact, they took great objection to his conclusions FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT and arrived at a decision in the Quebec court that he would not appreciate. However, that is the way it goes. BILL TO AMEND—SECOND READING— DEBATE ADJOURNED Senator Andreychuk is a former judge of the Superior Court of Saskatchewan. A recent committee report of the Senate involving Hon. Wilfred P. Moore moved second reading of Bill S-217, An children and children’s rights that she was involved in was Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (borrowing of referenced as well just six weeks ago and has been referenced money). many times with the testimony and conclusions of that particular committee. He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-217, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act. I . (1740) am very proud to reintroduce this bill, which was introduced by our friend and former colleague the Honourable Lowell Murray on three previous occasions, only to die on the Order Paper, a fate The two functions of the Senate — namely, the production of of many worthy endeavours in this place. committee reports, which are constantly referenced by our courts, of investigations that the Senate has done into various areas, coupled with what we have before us today, which are references I will keep my comments brief, as Senator Murray has already from the Senate that form the basis of court judgments in the placed on the record the reasons why this bill should be passed, as Supreme Court of Canada in this particular case — together form well as the events that led to its introduction. a function that the House of Commons could never perform because it is a political body. It performs one function: It holds The situation we are facing arose when the opposition in both the government accountable to the people of Canada for its houses failed to catch this little detail of the 2007 Budget actions; accountability, reported by the press. If there is no press, Implementation Act, although, to be fair to all parliamentarians there is not much accountability. It is like a tree that falls in the then, it was the first of the omnibus bills that this government is forest; does it make a noise? intent on using as a device not only to divide but to slip through certain aspects, such as the one Bill S-217 is attempting to rectify. As Senator Murray put it: That other function the Senate performs very well. Those two main functions are used by our courts and all our tribunals. Not very many people read them. The newspapers seldom quote The authority of Parliament over government borrowings judgments that quote the Senate, but it is a necessary function of was removed in the course of a budget implementation bill our law. We must have interpretations of the law. We have to in 2007, an omnibus bill. Does that sound familiar? That know what the intent of the government was in passing a bill. legislation was composed of 154 clauses in 14 parts and 134 pages amending 25 other acts of Parliament. Our attention as parliamentarians here in the Senate and over in the House Senator Batters provided the intent of the government in her of Commons was on a number of major initiatives in that speeches here. There must be an intent that is, at the end of the budget and in the implementation bill. In particular, I seem day, logical sober second thought. Watch Question Period in the to recall the Atlantic accord and changes introduced to the House of Commons and tell me that is sober second thought. equalization formula, among many others. While our attention was focused on these major matters, very That is the legislative function that the Senate performs every quietly, without any of us noticing it here or in the other day it sits, every day its committees sit and every day it passes place, a new section 43.1 was slipped in, added to the

[ Senator Baker ] March 26, 2013 SENATE DEBATES 3613

Financial Administration Act under the heading ‘‘Power to Revenue Fund. In Quebec, the government provides the authority borrow’’: for borrowing by the Minister of Finance. In Nova Scotia, the seat of Canada’s first responsible government, and in 43.1 The Governor-in-Council may authorize the Newfoundland and Labrador, cabinet must first obtain Minister to borrow money on behalf of Her Majesty permission from the legislatures in order to borrow money. in right of Canada. Certain exceptions exist, but cabinet is bound by law to go to the legislatures to seek permission to borrow on behalf of cabinet, There are just twenty words, and with those 20 words a ministries or agencies. New Brunswick allows for certain parliamentary prerogative that had existed in this country exceptions for borrowing authority, but, otherwise, for more than a century was consigned to the ash can. No authorization must be sought from the legislature. Prince one noticed. Edward Island legislates that borrowing can be done only with the authority of the legislature unless funds are being used for the In Canada, the power of Parliament to oversee borrowing by operating fund or for payment of securities. In the Yukon, government essentially goes to the root of why our Parliament Northwest Territories and Nunavut, there can be no borrowing exists. The establishment of parliamentary control over the public without the consent of the federal cabinet. purse began the evolution from absolute monarchy to our parliamentary democracy. As you can see, honourable senators, the legislatures play a major role in monitoring and approving the borrowing of money In the Middle Ages, borrowing for wars was the chief cause of by the government. It would only make sense that at the federal national debt incurred by a sovereign who could borrow amounts level, too, this should be the case. with impunity, at whatever rate was offered. In a speech made in 2012, Professor Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School said The February-March 2013 issue of Inside Policy, the magazine that Kings were a notorious credit risk because they did not like of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, contained an article on the to pay it back. Indeed, Charles II borrowed at a rate of 15 to budget by Scott Clark and Peter DeVries. In it, they argued that 20 per cent from Dutch lenders, while the private interest rate at the process has become too secretive and that the credibility of the the time was 3 per cent. process has been eroded over recent years. One the main culprits for this decline in the process is identified as the omnibus bill masquerading as a budget bill. The Glorious Revolution in 1688 brought an end to this situation with the end of the reign of King James II when he fled Throwing everything into the budget bill is not the proper way to France. There came more firm parliamentary control on of doing business. Indeed, Mr. Clark and Mr. DeVries used taxation, spending and borrowing. These controls are referred to stronger words. I quote: as ‘‘the Financial Revolution’’ and are the basis for our modern financial procedures. The use of Budget Omnibus Bills has grown to the point that they seriously undermine the integrity and credibility of the According to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice budget process and the authority of Parliament. publication, the basic components of parliamentary financial procedure are the Consolidated Revenue Fund, Royal The article goes on to question the clarity of the policy goals of Recommendation, supply, ways and means, public accounts and government when things are hidden in an omnibus bill. borrowing authority. Borrowing authority is the authorization Something as fundamental as parliamentary oversight of the required by the government to make up any shortfall between borrowing authority of our government should not be squirreled revenues and expenditures. away in a 400-page bill. Where is the transparency in that?

The provinces also have their own laws establishing borrowing Honourable senators, we must push today for more oversight in authority. In British Columbia, it requires authority from the the area of government borrowing. It is a basic principle of our legislature to borrow on behalf of cabinet, ministries or agencies, parliamentary system. Monitoring the public purse was the with a limited exception. original reason for a parliament to exist. In fact, it was a principle of our parliamentary system before the establishment of Alberta, on the other hand, does not follow that same path. universal suffrage which gave the right to vote in our democracy. There are limits to the amount that can be borrowed, but money can be raised in any manner the cabinet desires. Honourable senators, you should know that since this change to the Financial Administration Act in 2007 and until March 31, In Manitoba, the government may borrow for temporary 2012, the federal government has borrowed $1.254 trillion purposes and for purposes set out in their legislation, but without the approval of Parliament. This is not the proper way otherwise the legislature must provide authorization. to run a responsible, transparent and accountable government. Proper parliamentary oversight would provide the opportunity to In Saskatchewan, the authority to borrow comes from the ask questions about such borrowing, questions such as these: legislature, with certain exceptions How much? When? What for? How and when do we repay? What is the interest rate on such borrowings? Upon being satisfied with . (1750) the answers to those questions, Parliament would give its approval for such borrowing. This need for parliamentary In Ontario, the permission of the legislature must be obtained in oversight and approval must be restored. order to borrow, with three exceptions regarding loan and securities payments not exceeding 12 months at the time of It does not matter if the government is borrowing $5 or dissolution, discharging debts and reimbursing the Consolidated $5 billion, the people have a right to know and to approve. 3614 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2013

Therefore, I would ask you to seriously consider the merits of this Hon. Senators: Yes. bill, to support it and to restore our full parliamentary oversight. [English] Hon. Joseph A. Day: Honourable senators, I would first like to thank Senator Moore for bringing this matter forward again. I think it is deserving. CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: I want to be absolutely sure. I BILL TO AMEND—SECOND READING— understand that Senator Moore has moved. Generally speaking, DEBATE CONTINUED the second speaker’s time is reserved for the other side, so I was just wondering whether we could respect that reservation. On the Order:

The Hon. the Acting Speaker: I understand that Senator Day is Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable to put a question to Senator Moore. That is my reading of the Senator Finley, seconded by the Honourable Senator Frum, proceedings. for the second reading of Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom). Senator Comeau: I stand corrected. Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck: Honourable senators, I spoke with Senator Day: Thank you, honourable senators. There are two Senator Day, and we came to an agreement that I would speak other senators who were very interested in this matter when it was today and that after I was done, the adjournment would remain in previously debated, and their names should go on record. I Senator Day’s name. wonder whether my honourable colleague could confirm them. He did mention Senator Murray and the other is Senator Banks. I Honourable senators, I rise to speak at second reading of can remember when we first found this out, after the fact, but I Bill C-304, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act wonder whether my colleague could confirm that. (protecting freedom), and will address my remarks to clause 2, that section 13 of the act be repealed. Senator Moore: Yes, honourable senators. It seems to me that Senator Day noticed it first and then brought it to the attention of I want to thank Senators Munson, Jaffer and Fraser, who have Senator Banks, my seatmate. Senator Banks then spoke with spoken eloquently on the reasons this bill should be defeated. Senator Murray, and, from there, Senator Murray put together Frankly, it mystifies me why anyone would want to delete the bill. On three occasions, he tried to bring it in and to get the section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act just so that they oversight of Parliament restored. We should be doing that. It is could have the right to communicate so-called hurtful messages, not right the way it is now. I am looking for honourable senators’ when the offshoot of such a change to the Canadian Human help on this. Thank you for the question. Rights Act would be giving permission to extremists, such as white supremacists, to ramp up their hate messages and to be Senator Day: Honourable senators, it had been my hope, if no more likely to incite hatred towards specific racial groups in one from the other side was interested in speaking on this, to Canadian society, thereby compromising those groups’ well-being adjourn it in my name. and safety.

(On motion of Senator Carignan, debate adjourned.) As a visible minority woman of Cree and Chinese descent, I have confronted hatred, outright discrimination and so-called subtle discrimination throughout my life. However, it was [Translation] nowhere as severe as that faced by my parents. Thankfully, over time, due to the hard work of those who were oppressed and others who pressed for a more tolerant, equitable Canadian BUSINESS OF THE SENATE society, various measures, such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act, came into being. The purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act is to The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, it is my promote equality of opportunity unhindered by discriminatory duty to inform the Senate that it is now six o’clock. Unless there is practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, agreement between the deputy leaders, I will have to enforce the age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, rules. disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted. Hon. Claude Carignan (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I move that we not see the clock. Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act makes it a discriminatory practice to communicate repeatedly, via telephone or telecommunications, any matter that would likely expose a The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable person or persons to hatred or contempt because they are senators, to adopt the motion? identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

[ Senator Moore ] March 26, 2013 SENATE DEBATES 3615

. (1800) freedoms set out in it are ‘‘subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and The proponents of repealing section 13 basically have three democratic society.’’ In other words, freedom of expression is not arguments, which have now been discounted by recent court an absolute right; it is subject to limits. Surely, the vast majority decisions and also by scientific studies. of Canadians are willing to forgo the unfounded notion of absolute freedom of expression in order to foster equality of opportunity for others who may be targets of hate messages Their first argument for repealing section 13 is that the impact because of race, sexual orientation or other factors. of hate messages on the target is merely one of hurt feelings. However, this is a clear denial of the significant negative impact of repeated hatred. This negative impact would be far worse if Honourable senators, it is important to note that those people section 13 were severed from the Canadian Human Rights Act who claim that their right to freedom of speech or expression is because that would signal that offensive hate messages are being unfairly limited by section 13 do not seem to realize that the acceptable by mainstream society, and the incidence and intensity targets of their hate messages have equal right to protection from of such behaviors would escalate. Section 13(1) uses the words hate messages. Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights ‘‘likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt....’’ and Freedoms states that

While the target may well have hurt feelings, hate propaganda Every individual is equal before and under the law and creates and reinforces negative stereotypes about the target group has the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law that harm the rights of an individual member of the target group without discrimination and, in particular, without to be judged according to his or her own merits rather than be discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, judged as a stereotypical member of a hated group. In other colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. words, people belonging to the hated target group are all seen in a negative and stereotyped fashion. In other words, people who are the target of hate messages have an equal right to protection from being subjected to hate messages For example, if we allow the notion that all brown-skinned provided to them by section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights people are deserving of hatred or contempt to be communicated Act. repeatedly on the Internet, it will harm an individual brown- skinned person’s ability to be judged on his or her own merits in Proponents of the absolute right to freedom of expression also schools or in the workplace. Furthermore, such hate propaganda seem to be unaware of the rights of their targets to equality of would interfere with their right to live a life free from the fear of opportunity. Section 2 of the Canadian Human Rights Act states being constantly insulted, demeaned, harassed or undermined. that the purpose of the act:

Honourable senators, what I have to say next may surprise you. ... is to extend the laws of Canada to give effect... to the Recently, neuroscientists have shown that DNA, the epigenetics principle that all individuals should have an opportunity code within the hippocampus of brains of adults who were equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives emotionally or physically abused as children, is permanently that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs altered. In other words, our genetic makeup can be permanently accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations and biochemically modified by exposure to abusive events. This as members of society, without being hindered in or recent study out of McGill University shows that there is a clear prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based link between a person’s social environment and his or her on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex... age epigenetic code. Since a person’s genes can be affected by or mental or physical disability. childhood emotional abuse, then it is not hard to postulate that being exposed to constant hate messaging might also alter one’s Honourable senators, it is truly ironic that those who argue that DNA. In other words, the impact of hate messaging may well the freedom of expression is hindered by section 13 overlook the cause hurt feelings, and now through neuroscience we know that equally important fact that hate speech hinders the freedom of hurt feelings, in turn, can cause permanent physical changes to the expression of the targeted groups. This is an important DNA of a person’s brain. Such DNA changes have been consideration. Hate propaganda limits the freedom of belief, correlated to adult suicide. opinion and expression of the targeted group. How can one argue for the right to free speech and simultaneously ignore the fact that Honourable senators, this recent neuroscience research dispels the intention of purveyors of hate messages is to take away the the myth that hurt feelings are of no consequence. While freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression of their target? psychological research has shown that people whose feelings Hate messages directed to an identifiable group discredits or have been hurt seriously can develop emotional scars, undermines their credibility. Their voices are not heard to the neuroscientific studies have found biochemical scars; that is, same extent. They are disadvantaged simply because of who they permanent changes in their brain DNA. In other words, hurtful are. words can physically affect or hurt your brain. In the so-called free exchange or free market of ideas, the voices The second argument that proponents of this bill put forward is of targets of hatred do not have equal value, nor do they have that section 13 interferes with their freedom of expression. While equal power. One of the main purposes of hate messages is to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that silence members of a target group. everyone has the right of freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including the freedom of the press and other As I said before, honourable senators, freedom of expression is media of communications, it also states that the rights and not an absolute. The notion of equality of opportunity and the 3616 SENATE DEBATES March 26, 2013 notion of freedom of speech are connected. Those who claim that As senators, do we not have a duty to retain legislation that their rights to freedom of speech are being unfairly limited have protects the vulnerable from repeated Internet hate messages? Do no greater right than anyone else’s right to live a life free from we not have a duty to protect the rights of the vulnerable to continual harassment and discrimination, which are the outward equality of opportunity to make for themselves the lives that they manifestations of hatred towards others. Such claims to the are able to and wish to have and to have their needs supremacy of one’s rights over another’s have no legitimate accommodated consistent with their duties and obligations as foundation. Claiming supremacy of rights to spread hate members of Canadian society? messages directed to targeted groups is a symptom of bigotry. Honourable senators, those who have been charged with Honourable senators, even here in this chamber we do not have violating section 13 have tried to use a violation of their absolute freedom of expression. For example, in the Senate rule freedom of expression as a defence in the courts, but this course book under rule 6-13(1): of action has not been successful. In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, All personal, sharp or taxing speeches are specifically John Taylor’s right to freedom of expression. In his unparliamentary and are out of order. ruling to preserve section 13, Chief Justice Dickson stated:

Under section 6-13(2): It can thus be concluded that messages of hate propaganda undermine the dignity and self-worth of target group members and, more generally, contribute to When a Senator is called to order for unparliamentary disharmonious relations amongst various racial, cultural language, any Senator may demand that the words be taken and religious groups.... down in writing by the Clerk. Honourable senators, may I have five more minutes? Finally, under rule 6-13(3): The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed? A Senator who has used unparliamentary words and who does not explain or retract them or offer an apology Hon. Senators: Agreed. acceptable to the Senate shall be disciplined as the Senate may determine. Senator Dyck: His ruling continued: Clearly, such rules were put in place to prevent inflammatory language from provoking undue emotional reactions which could ... as a result eroding the tolerance and open-mindedness escalate into physical reactions and near confrontation such as that must flourish in a multi-cultural society which is witnessed in the other place last December. committed to the idea of equality.

Honourable senators may find it difficult to comprehend the In addition, as pointed out by Senator Fraser, the Federal degree to which discrimination disempowers and silences the Court ruled a few months ago that the Canadian Human Rights voices of the target group. In my own case, you may be surprised Tribunal should have applied the section 13 provisions in the 2009 to hear that here, in this chamber of sober second thought, I have Lemire decision. The tribunal ruled that the penalties in the act for the first time in my life, not been afraid to say what I think. As were inconsistent with Charter guarantees of freedom of thought, a target of contempt and hatred, my freedom of expression was belief, opinion and expression. However, Federal Court Justice circumscribed. Defending myself invariably resulted in an Richard Mosley indicated that the tribunal should have severed escalation of unwanted, harassing behaviour and comments. I the penalty provisions and applied section 13 and its other had to be somewhat careful of what I said, but I never stopped remedies. He stated: fighting back, even as bystanders stood silent and did nothing. I suspect that they were relieved that it was I, not they, who was the The minimal harm caused by section 13 to freedom of target. expression is far outweighed by the benefit it provides to vulnerable groups and to the promotion of equality. . (1810) Furthermore, this ruling was reinforced just a few weeks ago Honourable senators, I am a strong, well-educated woman, yet when the Supreme Court of Canada upheld key provisions hateful and contemptuous words delivered to me repeatedly in the against hate speech in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, but workplace took a significant toll on my well-being. Most people struck down some of the code’s wording in a case prompted by who are targets of hate messages do not have the same level of flyers handed out by an anti-gay activist, William Whatcott. In his education or the inner strength that I am fortunate to have. Other ruling, Justice Marshall Rothstein stated: people may be more vulnerable to the insidious after-effects — the negative impact of hate messages. They have a right to be Hate is an effort to marginalize individuals based on their protected from hate messages. We do not live in a perfect society. membership in a group. Using expression that exposes the The vulnerable groups in our society must be protected from group to hatred, hate speech seeks to delegitimize group people like Ernst Zundel, who used the web to spew hate messages members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social at his target. It would be a mistake to sever the protection that standing and acceptance within society. Hate speech, section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act provides to victims therefore, rises beyond causing distress to individual group of hate messages. members. It can have societal impact.

[ Senator Dyck ] March 26, 2013 SENATE DEBATES 3617

He continued: applies to conduct that falls short of criminal behavior but nevertheless poses harm to vulnerable groups. In other words, Rather than advancing dialogue, hate speech is section 13 serves as a preventive law and is meant to stop someone antithetical to this objective in that it shuts down dialogue whose conduct is likely to incite hatred. Section 13 protects by making it difficult or impossible for members of the members of the targeted group from hate messaging. vulnerable group to respond, thereby stifling discourse. Surely it is a wiser measure overall to retain section 13 as a Speech that has the effect of shutting down public debate measure to stop someone from escalating their conduct to the cannot dodge prohibition on the basis that it promotes point that it does incite hatred toward the target. Section 13 not debate. only protects the target group but also everyone else from the civil disturbances that hatred incites. Furthermore, it stops hate- Judge David Arnot, Chief Commissioner of the Saskatchewan mongers before their conduct becomes criminal, thus saving them Human Rights Commission, hailed the ruling, saying that it goes from a criminal record, jail time or other penalties. to the heart of what it means to be Canadian. He said, ‘‘It basically says under no circumstances should hate speech be Honourable senators, the effect of the Canadian Human Rights tolerated.’’ Act as a whole and section 13 as deterrents to discriminatory The court struck down the part of the legislation that includes behaviour is an important consideration. The magnitude of speech that ‘‘ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of deterrence is unknown and perhaps not even measurable. any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited However, given the intensity of the speeches of the opponents of the Canadian Human Rights Act and section 13 in particular, ground.’’ It found these words are not rationally connected to the one can surmise that it is probably quite significant. It appears objective of protecting people from hate speech. However, the that the protection afforded to vulnerable groups who are the court left in place the ban on speech that exposes or tends to expose persons or groups to hatred. targets of hate messages is not only legitimate but also essential and necessary. Honourable senators, the third argument that supporters of Bill C-304 use is that section 13 is not really necessary because The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Unfortunately, the honourable section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides all the senator’s time has expired. necessary legal protection that Canadians need against hate speech. However, according to the Canadian Bar Association, (On motion of Senator Day, debate adjourned.) section 13 has a different purpose: It provides remedies to target groups for the harm that hate messages create. It fosters greater (The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, March 27, 2013, at respect for target groups, and it changes behavior. Section 13 1:30 p.m.) CONTENTS Tuesday, March 26, 2013

PAGE PAGE

Visitors in the Gallery International Cooperation The Hon. the Acting Speaker ...... 3587 Canadian International Development Agency—Foreign Aid. Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer ...... 3592 Hon. Marjory LeBreton ...... 3593 SENATORS’ STATEMENTS Human Resources and Skills Development Parental Leave—Health Benefits. La Sûreté du Québec Hon. Jim Munson ...... 3593 Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais ...... 3587 Hon. Marjory LeBreton ...... 3593

Tartan Day Science and Technology Hon. Elizabeth Hubley ...... 3587 Research and Development. Visitors in the Gallery Hon. Claudette Tardif ...... 3594 The Hon. the Acting Speaker ...... 3588 Hon. Marjory LeBreton ...... 3594 Hon. James S. Cowan...... 3594 Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute Hon. Maria Chaput ...... 3595 Hon. Asha Seth ...... 3588 Hon. Jane Cordy ...... 3595 Les Jeunes Manitobains des communautés associées Hon. Maria Chaput ...... 3588 Answers to Order Paper Questions Tabled Finance—European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. International Epilepsy Day Hon. Claude Carignan ...... 3596 Hon. Jacques Demers ...... 3589 Veterans Affairs—Staffing. Hon. Claude Carignan ...... 3596 Radicalization Hon. Mobina S. B. Jaffer ...... 3589

Mikael Kingsbury Congratulations on Winning Freestyle Skiing World ORDERS OF THE DAY Championships Crystal Globe. Hon. Claude Carignan ...... 3590 Business of the Senate Hon. Claude Carignan ...... 3596

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS The Estimates, 2013-14 Main Estimates—Nineteenth Report of National Finance Committee Adopted. Criminal Code (Bill C-55) Hon. Joseph A. Day...... 3596 Bill to Amend—Twenty-third Report of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Presented. Hon. Larry W. Smith ...... 3598 Hon. Bob Runciman ...... 3590 Hon. Wilfred P. Moore...... 3598 Hon. Claude Carignan ...... 3590 Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck ...... 3599

The Estimates, 2013-14 Appropriation Bill No. 5, 2012-13 (Bill C-58) Main Estimates—Nineteenth Report of Finance Committee Tabled. Third Reading. Hon. Joseph A. Day...... 3590 Hon. Larry W. Smith ...... 3599 Hon. Joseph A. Day...... 3599 Study on Prescription Pharmaceuticals Twentieth Report of Social Affairs, Science and Technology Appropriation Bill No. 1, 2013-14 (Bill C-59) Committee Tabled. Third Reading. Hon. Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie ...... 3591 Hon. Larry W. Smith ...... 3601 Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Hon. Joseph A. Day...... 3601 Committee Authorized to Meet During Sitting of the Senate. Hon. Richard Neufeld ...... 3591 Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (Bill S-14) Hon. Claudette Tardif ...... 3591 Bill to Amend—Third Reading. Hon. Janis G. Johnson ...... 3602 Hon. David P. Smith ...... 3602 QUESTION PERIOD Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk ...... 3602 Bill to Assent to Alterations in the Law Touching the Succession to the Throne (Bill C-53) Human Resources and Skills Development Budget 2013—Skills Training Programs. Third Reading. Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette ...... 3591 Hon. Serge Joyal ...... 3603 Hon. Marjory LeBreton ...... 3591 Hon. Jean-Claude Rivest...... 3607 PAGE PAGE

Criminal Code (Bill C-55) Financial Administration Act (Bill S-217) Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Debate Suspended. Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Adjourned. Hon. Denise Batters ...... 3608 Hon. Joan Fraser ...... 3608 Hon. Wilfred P. Moore...... 3612 Hon. George Baker ...... 3610 Hon. Joseph A. Day...... 3614 Hon. Gerald J. Comeau ...... 3614 Business of the Senate ...... 3611 Business of the Senate First Nations Financial Transparency Bill (Bill C-27) Hon. Claude Carignan ...... 3614 Third Reading ...... 3611

Criminal Code (Bill C-55) Canadian Human Rights Act (Bill C-304) Bill to Amend—Third Reading. Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued. Hon. George Baker ...... 3611 Hon. Lillian Eva Dyck ...... 3614 Published by the Senate Available on the Internet: http://www.parl.gc.ca